This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-966 
entitled 'Architect of the Capitol: Midyear Status Report on 
Implementation of

Management Review Recommendations' which was released on August 31, 
2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Committees: 

August 2004: 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL: 

Midyear Status Report on Implementation of Management Review 
Recommendations: 

GAO-04-966: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-04-966, a report to Congressional committees.

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Conference Report on the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 
2003, directed GAO to monitor AOC’s progress in implementing 
recommendations contained in GAO’s management review of AOC’s 
operations, issued in January 2003. This is the second status report in 
which GAO examines the actions taken by AOC to implement selected GAO 
recommendations. Additionally, the Consolidated Appropriations 
Resolution, 2003, mandated GAO to assess AOC’s Chief Operating 
Officer’s (COO) action plan. This report provides that assessment.

What GAO Found: 

AOC has made progress on key management control issues, but substantial 
work remains to achieve sustained, long-term management improvements 
and organizational transformation. These key issues include (1) 
stakeholder involvement, (2) employee communications, (3) auditable 
financial statements and related internal controls, (4) financial 
reporting for operating units and cost accounting, (5) information 
security management, (6) worker safety performance measures, (7) 
Capitol complex master planning, and (8) strategic management of 
recycling.

For example, AOC has not fully engaged its congressional and other 
stakeholders in developing a clear, transparent, and documented 
understanding of how AOC sets project priorities and how progress will 
be assessed. AOC has taken some steps to involve its stakeholders by 
delivering planning documents and responding to requests for 
information. AOC has made progress addressing employee communications 
issues and can maintain momentum by fully and effectively implementing 
its planned initiatives. AOC has made progress in preparing auditable 
agencywide financial statements; however, it has deferred the audit of 
a complete set of financial statements from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal 
year 2005. Also, substantial work remains before AOC can provide its 
managers with the meaningful financial, cost, and performance 
information needed to enhance their management of operating units. AOC 
has continued to make some progress establishing the management 
foundation for effective information security management, but much 
remains to be accomplished, such as completing system risk assessments 
and monitoring and evaluating its security policies and controls. 
Additionally, AOC has developed performance measures to track worker 
safety, but work remains to ensure successful implementation of these 
measures. In regard to project management, AOC has taken steps to 
develop a Capitol complex master plan and expects it to be available 
for stakeholder comment in February 2006. Given the importance of the 
master plan, stakeholder involvement early in and throughout its 
development is key to the plan’s ultimate acceptance and value. 
Similarly, AOC has made progress developing a mission statement and 
goals for its recycling program as part of its broader Environmental 
Program Plan, although AOC does not expect to obtain congressional 
input until after the plan has been completed—an important omission. 

The Architect and the COO need to work with Congress to determine 
Congress’ information needs—with a specific focus on AOC’s project 
management—and the timing and format of delivery of that information 
that will best meet Congress’ needs. The COO Action Plan was submitted 
to Congress on December 22, 2003—59 days late. Overall, the plan’s 
high-level description of action items assumes that Congress and other 
users have a deep and detailed knowledge of AOC’s goals, internal 
operations, and management functions—a level of knowledge that is not 
reasonable to expect. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO makes 13 additional recommendations to assist AOC in its 
management control efforts—such as stakeholder involvement, auditable 
financial statements and related internal controls, financial reporting 
for operating units and cost accounting, and Capitol complex master 
planning—and to enhance the COO action plan. The Architect noted his 
agreement with each of our recommendations, except for three that 
addressed worker safety performance measures, Capitol complex master 
planning, and the process for prioritizing projects. GAO continues to 
believe that additional efforts are needed, but revised two of the 
three recommendations—master planning and project prioritization—to 
address the Architect’s concerns and provide greater clarity. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-966.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at 
(202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

AOC Has Yet to Fully Engage Congressional and Other Stakeholders: 

AOC Has Made Progress toward Implementing an Employee Communications 
Strategy: 

Progress Made in Preparing Auditable Financial Statements and 
Establishing Related Internal Controls: 

Substantial Work Remains on Providing Financial Reporting for Operating 
Units and Implementing Cost Accounting Processes and Procedures: 

AOC Has Continued to Make Progress Implementing Its Information 
Security Program: 

AOC Has Made Progress in Developing Safety Performance Measures, but 
Implementation of Measures Are a Work in Progress: 

AOC Has Taken Steps to Develop a Capitol Complex Master Plan, but Lack 
of Congressional and Other Stakeholder Involvement and Delays Hamper 
Additional Progress: 

AOC Made Progress Toward Adopting a More Strategic Approach to its 
Recycling Program: 

COO Action Plan Addresses Six Business Areas, but Lacks Sufficient 
Details to Guide and Communicate the COO's Performance and Progress: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Comments from the Architect of the Capitol: 

Appendix II: Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Key Issue and Corresponding Prior Recommendations: 

Letter August 31, 2004: 

The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell: 
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jack Kingston: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable James P. Moran: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Trent Lott: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Rules and Administration:
United States Senate: 

This is our second semiannual report on the Office of the Architect of 
the Capitol (AOC), as required by the Conference Report on the 
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003.[Footnote 1] This report 
evaluates AOC's progress since December 1, 2003, in establishing select 
elements of a strategic management and accountability framework, 
including strong management infrastructure and controls, to drive its 
agency transformation efforts and to address long-standing program 
issues. In January 2004, we completed the first semiannual review and 
issued a report on AOC's progress from January 18, 2003, through 
November 30, 2003, in implementing recommendations outlined in our 
January 2003 report.[Footnote 2]

Based on our past reviews of AOC's progress implementing our 
recommendations, this report focuses on eight key management control 
issues that deserve near-term attention. These are (1) stakeholder 
involvement, (2) employee communications, (3) auditable financial 
statements and related internal controls, (4) financial reporting for 
operating units and cost accounting, (5) information security 
management, (6) worker safety performance measures, (7) Capitol complex 
master planning,[Footnote 3] and (8) strategic management of recycling. 
Each key issue is linked to one or more of our prior recommendations. 
As mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, this 
report also assesses the Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer (COO) 
Action Plan that was issued in December 2003. We conducted our work in 
Washington, D.C., from April 2004 through July 2004 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief: 

During the 6 months we reviewed, AOC made progress on all eight key 
management control issues, but substantial work remains to achieve 
sustained, long-term management improvements and organizational 
transformation. These key issues, as well as our corresponding prior 
recommendations, are listed in table 1.

Table 1: Key Issue and Corresponding Prior Recommendations: 

Key Issue--Stakeholder Involvement.

Corresponding Prior Recommendations: 

(1) Improve strategic planning and organizational alignment by 
involving key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC's 
strategic planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may 
result from these efforts.

(2) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 
communications by completing the development of congressional protocols 
by involving stakeholders.

(3) Conduct a pilot of its congressional protocols in one or more of 
its jurisdictions to determine how well its protocols would work in 
addressing customer requests for service, while balancing the needs of 
multiple requests with the strategic plan and corresponding project 
priorities of the agency.

(4) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 
communications by improving annual accountability reporting through 
annual performance planning and reporting.

Key Issue--Employee Communications.

Corresponding Prior Recommendations: 

(5) Strengthen AOC's human capital policies, procedures, and processes 
by assessing ways in which AOC management could better gather and 
analyze data from the various employee relations offices and employee 
advisory council while maintaining employee confidentiality.

(6) Establish a direct reporting relationship between the Ombudsperson 
and the Architect consistent with professional standards.

(7) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 
communications by providing opportunities for routine employee input 
and feedback.

(8) Gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or surveys 
before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is taking 
actions to address any identified employee concerns.

Key Issue--Auditable Financial Statements and Related Internal 
Controls, and; Key Issue--Financial Reporting for Operating Units and 
Cost Accounting.

Corresponding Prior Recommendation: 

(9) Continue to improve AOC's approach to financial management by 
developing strategies to institutionalize financial management 
practices that will support budgeting, financial, and program 
management at AOC.

Key Issue--Information Security Management.

Corresponding Prior Recommendation: 

(10) Establish and implement an information security program. 
Specifically, the Architect should establish an information security 
program by taking the following steps: ; * designate a security officer 
and provide him or her with the authority and resources to implement an 
agencywide security program,; * develop and implement policy and 
guidance to perform risk assessments continually,; * use the results of 
the risk assessments to develop and implement appropriate controls,; * 
develop policies for security training and awareness and provide the 
training, and; * monitor and evaluate policy and control 
effectiveness.

Key Issue--Worker Safety Performance Measures.

Corresponding Prior Recommendations: 

(11) Identify performance measures for safety goals and objectives, 
including measures for how AOC will implement 43 specialized safety 
programs and how superintendents and employees will be held accountable 
for achieving results.

(12) Establish a safety training curriculum that fully supports all of 
the goals of the safety program and further evaluate the effectiveness 
of the training provided.

(13) Establish a senior management work group that will routinely 
discuss workers' compensation cases and costs, and develop strategies 
to reduce these injuries and costs.

Key Issue--Capitol Complex Master Planning.

Corresponding Prior Recommendations: 

(14) Develop a Capitol complex master plan and complete condition 
assessments of all buildings and facilities under the jurisdiction of 
AOC.

(15) Develop a process for assigning project priorities that is based 
on clearly defined, well-documented, consistently applied, and 
transparent criteria.

Key Issue--Strategic Management of Recycling.

Corresponding Prior Recommendation: 

(16) Develop a clear mission and goals for AOC's recycling program with 
input from key congressional stakeholders as part of its proposed 
environmental master plan. AOC may want to establish reasonable goals 
based on the total waste stream--information it plans to obtain as part 
of its long-term environmental management plan--that could potentially 
be recycled.

Source: GAO: 

[End of table]

Stakeholder Involvement: AOC has not yet fully engaged its 
congressional and other stakeholders and has not effectively worked 
with Congress to develop a clear, transparent, and documented 
understanding of how AOC sets project priorities and how progress will 
be assessed. In addition, as detailed in other sections of this report, 
AOC needs to expand Congress' involvement in the development of the 
Capitol complex master plan and the mission and goals for the agency's 
recycling program. AOC did, however, take some steps to involve 
congressional and other stakeholders during the 6 months reviewed by 
attending monthly or biweekly meetings with congressional stakeholders, 
delivering planning documents to congressional stakeholders, and 
responding to requests for information. AOC can strengthen its 
stakeholder relationships by informing congressional and other 
stakeholders of AOC's progress and activities, as well as more 
effectively consulting with these stakeholders to build a mutual 
understanding of each other's project priorities. AOC also recognizes 
that a next step in the strategic planning process is to more fully 
incorporate outcome-and performance-based measures into the agency's 
strategic and performance plans, and it plans to seek assistance in 
developing these measures. Given the importance of stakeholder 
involvement, we recommend the Architect of the Capitol direct the COO 
to (1) actively consult with Congress on the design and implementation 
of meaningful outcome-and performance-based measures, (2) expedite the 
release of the 2003 building services customer satisfaction survey as a 
transparency and accountability mechanism, and (3) work with Congress 
on the design and implementation of a transparent process to facilitate 
an understanding between AOC and its congressional stakeholders about 
how AOC targets its efforts and resources at the highest project 
priorities and how strategic and tactical decisions and trade-offs are 
made.

Employee Communications: Gathering accurate and timely information from 
employees about their concerns is critical to the development of 
meaningful human capital policies. Over the 6 months we reviewed, AOC 
has made progress addressing employee communications by developing a 
number of policies and procedures, such as a strategic communications 
plan, a draft employee feedback manual, a customer satisfaction survey 
manual, and a focus group guide. AOC can maintain momentum in this area 
by fully and effectively implementing its planned initiatives. The 
ombudsperson's position, which was initially created to help address 
employee relations problems, however, has remained vacant since 
September 30, 2003, and AOC does not currently plan to fill the 
position. An ombudsperson serves as an independent provider of advice 
and counsel to nonunion employees on employment policies, practices, or 
other employment-related matters. A decision by AOC management to leave 
this position vacant should be made only after a thorough analysis of 
AOC's and employees' needs, as well as the capacity of other offices to 
fulfill those needs. Accordingly, we are recommending that the 
Architect of the Capitol direct the COO to (1) fully and effectively 
implement the basic framework as defined in its communications plan and 
process manuals, and finalize its draft employee feedback manual, and 
(2) conduct an analysis of AOC's and employees' needs with respect to 
resolving employee concerns, as well as assessing the capacity of 
existing offices to fulfill those needs.

Auditable Financial Statements and Related Internal Controls: The 
ability to prepare agencywide financial statements that, along with 
related internal controls, can be independently audited represents a 
key component of an organization's ability to institutionalize 
financial management best practices and establish a sound foundation of 
accountability and control. AOC has made progress in preparing 
agencywide financial statements; supporting an audit of its September 
30, 2003, balance sheet; and establishing related internal control 
policies and procedures. As part of its efforts to prepare agencywide 
financial statements, AOC put in place internal control policies and 
procedures related to funds control, financial reporting, and inventory 
management, and is starting work on other actions to further enhance 
financial control and accountability. The auditor is expected shortly 
to report on the results of the first-ever audit of AOC's balance 
sheet, which is a key step in AOC's efforts to build a foundation of 
financial control and accountability. The auditor's reporting will 
include the results of internal control work that it performed, which 
will provide AOC with additional valuable information as it further 
strengthens accountability and internal control. The audit of the 
fiscal year 2003 balance sheet has taken longer and required more 
effort to support than initially planned. As a result, AOC plans to 
defer its plans for an audit of a complete set of AOC's financial 
statements from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. For fiscal year 
2004, AOC plans to have its September 30, 2004, balance sheet audited 
and to have its auditor perform some additional procedures designed to 
help AOC to better prepare for a successful audit of a complete set of 
its financial statements for fiscal year 2005. AOC deferred the audit 
of a complete set of financial statements to fiscal year 2005 to 
provide sufficient time to prepare for and support a full scope audit 
and to enable AOC staff to deal with issues that came to light during 
the fiscal year 2003 balance sheet audit. We recommend that the 
Architect of the Capitol, COO, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and other 
senior management provide strong and visible support for efforts to 
prepare auditable financial statements and implement an effective 
internal control framework by monitoring the implementation and related 
milestones for each effort, ensuring the commitment to and support for 
each effort by participating AOC units, and acting to resolve any 
impediments that may arise.

Financial Reporting for Operating Units and Cost Accounting: Developing 
useful financial reports by major operating units and implementing 
effective cost accounting processes and procedures can enhance efforts 
to institutionalize financial management best practices by providing 
managers with the information needed to effectively manage operations 
and helping to extend responsibility for financial accountability and 
control throughout an organization's operations. Over the 6 months we 
reviewed, AOC progressed in developing financial reports for its major 
operating units, but it has not begun the process of providing the 
reports to the operating units and training managers on how the reports 
may help in managing their operations. With regard to cost accounting, 
AOC plans for only limited work to be done through the end of fiscal 
year 2005, with the major work scheduled for fiscal year 2006 through 
fiscal year 2007 that will identify and implement system and procedural 
changes needed to have a cost accounting system operational in fiscal 
year 2008. According to AOC officials, the primary reason for deferring 
the start of substantive work on implementing cost accounting is AOC's 
need to develop appropriate and consistent performance metrics across 
major operating units. As a result, substantial work remains to be done 
before AOC can provide managers with the meaningful financial, cost, 
and performance information needed to enhance their management of 
operating units and extend responsibility for financial accountability 
and control to the units. We recommend that the Architect of the 
Capitol direct the COO and the CFO to (1) work with operating managers 
to assess the usefulness of financial-statement-level information; take 
an active role in AOC near-term efforts to develop agencywide 
performance measures; and review all available options to determine 
whether substantial work can begin, prior to fiscal year 2006, on the 
analyses needed to identify changes necessary to implement useful cost 
accounting at AOC, and (2) have senior management visibly demonstrate 
its continuing commitment to and support for making AOC-wide system, 
procedural, and cultural changes necessary to provide managers with 
timely financial, cost, and performance information by monitoring the 
efforts' implementation and related milestones, ensuring the commitment 
to and support for the efforts by participating AOC units, and acting 
to resolve any impediments that may arise.

Information Security Management: Information security is critical to 
AOC's ability to ensure the reliability, availability, and 
confidentiality of its information and technology assets. Accordingly, 
our January 2003 report provided AOC with recommendations for 
establishing and implementing an effective information security 
program. In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC had made 
progress toward implementing these recommendations. Since then, AOC has 
continued to make progress in implementing our recommendations. For 
example, it has brought on contractor staff to support security 
operations, developed employee awareness and security training policies 
and begun implementing them, and developed policy and guidance on 
system risk assessments. Over the next 8 months, AOC plans to complete 
employee awareness activities, complete system risk assessments on 
major applications and systems, and complete the initial data gathering 
on security policy and control metrics and issue its first report on 
their effectiveness. Although much important work remains in the basic 
areas of information security management, if AOC follows through on its 
plans and actions it should have the management foundation in place for 
effective information security management. Until it does, it will 
remain challenged in its ability to effectively secure its information 
and technology assets.

Worker Safety Performance Measures: Although AOC has made progress in 
developing performance measures to track worker safety, the 
implementation of these measures is a work in progress. AOC has 
developed several broad performance measures, including a measure of 
the extent to which unsafe conditions exist within AOC and a measure to 
assess employees' perceptions of safety. In addition, AOC has developed 
several specific performance measures to track worker safety, including 
performance measures for several of the 34 safety policies and measures 
to assess the impacts of workers' compensation injuries and costs. 
Nonetheless, work remains to ensure successful implementation of these 
measures. For example, AOC views the safety perception survey as a 
communications tool that provided useful information about employees' 
perceptions about safety in their environment. However, AOC does not 
view the survey as a strategic measure of its performance. Although 
there were weaknesses with the survey design, it holds promise as a 
measure of how employees believe safety is valued at AOC. To enhance 
worker safety performance measures at AOC, we recommend that the 
Architect of the Capitol direct the COO to expand upon the safety 
perception survey by developing a more rigorous methodological approach 
and collecting such information on a more regular basis.

Capitol Complex Master Planning: AOC has taken steps to improve 
construction project management by developing a Capitol complex master 
plan, but more needs to be done to ensure the successful completion of 
the plan in a timely manner. AOC expects to award a contract for the 
development of the Capitol complex master plan in August 2004. However, 
the expected completion date for the plan has twice been changed to a 
later date. Currently, a draft plan is to be available for stakeholder 
comment in February 2006, and the final version published June 2007. 
Given the importance and sensitivity of the master plan and the 
condition of the Capitol complex, as well as the difficult trade-offs 
that the current budget environment demands, congressional and other 
stakeholder involvement early and throughout the development of the 
master plan is key to the plan's ultimate acceptance and value. 
Facility condition assessments (FCA), which are key components of a 
master plan, are also being carried out at the House and Senate office 
buildings as well as the Capitol building.[Footnote 4] Senior agency 
officials reported that AOC intends to define the scope of work for the 
remaining jurisdictions after they complete lessons learned from the 
first round of FCAs to identify areas that may improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the process. This is an appropriate 
step if it does not delay the start of future FCAs. Although AOC has 
created a clear, well-documented, and transparent process for 
evaluating and prioritizing projects internally, the process does not 
address the underlying need to get agreement from and inform 
congressional and other stakeholders on how AOC sets priorities. In 
order to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts, we recommend 
that the Architect of the Capitol, with support from the COO, lead 
efforts to ensure that congressional and other stakeholders are engaged 
early and throughout the development of the master plan. In order to 
improve the process for prioritizing projects, we recommend that the 
Architect of the Capitol, with support from the COO, lead efforts to 
ensure that AOC informs and obtains agreement from congressional and 
other stakeholders on how and why specific projects are submitted for 
funding.

Strategic Management of Recycling: The mission statement and goals for 
the agency's recycling program are being developed as part of AOC's 
broader Environmental Program Plan. During the 6 months we reviewed, 
AOC completed a baseline assessment that evaluated the compliance of 
AOC facilities and operations with federal, state, and local 
environmental regulations, as well as a waste stream analysis, which 
identified the types of and amounts of waste created at AOC facilities 
and possible pollution prevention opportunities. AOC's current waste 
stream analysis, which is being expanded to include electronic waste, 
such as outdated computer equipment, is to be used to develop pollution 
prevention plans. Although AOC received valuable input from internal 
stakeholders on its environmental plan in May 2004, it does not plan to 
obtain congressional stakeholder input until after the plan is 
completed--an important omission in our view. Accordingly, we recommend 
that the Architect of the Capitol direct the COO to obtain preliminary 
input from congressional stakeholders on its environmental program 
plan--particularly as the plan relates to the mission and goals of 
AOC's recycling program--prior to completion of the plan.

The COO's Action Plan: The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 
2003, required the COO of AOC to prepare an action plan describing the 
policies, procedures, and actions to carry out his responsibilities, 
which we were mandated to assess. The action plan, which was submitted 
to congressional committees on December 22, 2003--59 days after it was 
required to have been submitted--listed 31 action items across six 
business areas. The plan assumes Congress and other users of the plan 
have a deep and detailed knowledge of AOC's goals, internal operations, 
and management functions--a level of knowledge that is not reasonable 
to expect. The plan also does not clearly describe how the COO would 
fulfill his legislated responsibilities or help lead transformational 
change at AOC. For example, while the plan and its accompanying report 
acknowledge the need for organizational changes and highlight expected 
improvements, they do not describe what specific changes the COO 
envisions or how those changes would be accomplished. To enhance the 
usefulness of the COO action plan, we recommend that the Architect of 
the Capitol and the COO consult with members of Congress and key 
committees on specific information about AOC's plans, policies, 
procedures, actions, and proposed organizational changes. As part of 
this effort, the Architect and the COO should work with Congress to 
determine Congress' information needs and the timing and format of 
delivery of that information that will best meet Congress' needs. 
Furthermore, consistent with our findings and recommendations in regard 
to congressional and other stakeholder involvement in general and the 
Capitol complex master plan in particular, as well as our original 
January 2003 management review, specific emphasis should be placed on 
AOC's project management. Subsequent COO action plans and status 
reports will likely be most helpful to Congress to the extent that they 
are rigorously specific as to the problem or issue that needs to be 
addressed, the actions that are being taken in response, the progress 
to date, and milestones for additional actions.

On July 26, 2004, we provided a draft of this report to the Architect 
for review and comment. We received written comments August 13, 2004, 
which are reprinted in appendix I. In his comments, the Architect 
generally agreed with our findings and conclusions. He suggested 
technical changes and provided additional information related to 
information security, safety performance measures, and Capitol complex 
master planning that were incorporated into our report where 
appropriate. The Architect also noted his agreement with each new 
recommendation, except for those regarding worker safety performance 
measures, Capitol complex master planning, and the process for 
prioritizing projects.

Regarding worker safety performance measures, we recommended that AOC 
expand upon its safety perception survey by developing a more rigorous 
methodological approach. In response, the Architect stated AOC's 
response rate was 68 percent and that the survey used a number of 
benchmark questions that have previously been used in other surveys. 
Nonetheless, as frontline employees (e.g. carpenters, plumbers, and 
custodial workers) are most at risk of work-related injuries, their low 
response rate of 49 percent makes it difficult for AOC to draw 
meaningful conclusions about this at risk group's attitudes towards 
safety. In addition, the lack of a pretest of the survey does not give 
AOC assurance that employees interpreted the questions in the manner 
AOC had expected. Thus, we believe that AOC's safety perception survey 
would still benefit from a more rigorous methodological approach.

In our draft report, we also recommended that the Architect direct the 
COO to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts and the process 
to prioritize projects by (1) ensuring that congressional and other 
stakeholders are engaged early and throughout the development of the 
Capitol complex master plan and (2) ensuring that AOC informs and 
obtains agreement from congressional and other stakeholders on how and 
why specific projects are submitted for funding. According to the 
Architect, he has and will continue to lead the Capitol complex master 
plan initiative and he plans to meet with stakeholders at the beginning 
and throughout the development of the master plan. The Architect's 
personal involvement is critical to success of the Capitol complex 
master plan, and his plan to engage stakeholders is consistent with our 
recommendation. However, the COO should also be involved in the master 
planning process, project prioritization, and communication with 
stakeholders because the COO position was created to serve as a central 
leadership point at AOC. As such, we made revisions to the two 
recommendations so that the Architect, with support from the COO, leads 
efforts to implement the recommendations. The Architect also questioned 
the direct link between the master plan and the prioritization process. 
Although we continue to believe that the Capitol complex master plan 
and the prioritization process should be linked because the master plan 
could help guide day-to-day project prioritization, we now address them 
separately for the sake of clarity.

Background: 

AOC is responsible for the maintenance, renovation, and new 
construction of the buildings and grounds primarily located within the 
Capitol Hill complex. Organizationally, AOC consists of a centralized 
staff that performs administrative functions and separate 
"jurisdictions" responsible for the day-to-day operations at the U.S. 
Capitol Building, the Senate Office Buildings, the House Office 
Buildings, the Library of Congress Buildings and Grounds, the Supreme 
Court Buildings and Grounds, the Capitol Grounds, the Capitol Power 
Plant, and the Botanic Garden. The historic nature and high profile of 
many of these buildings creates a complex environment in which to carry 
out AOC's mission. AOC must perform its duties in an environment that 
requires balancing the divergent needs of congressional leadership, 
committees, individual members of Congress, congressional staffs, and 
the visiting public. The challenges of operating in this environment 
were complicated by the events of September 11, 2001, and the resulting 
need for increased security.

We issued a report in January 2003 that contained 35 recommendations to 
assist AOC in establishing a strategic management and accountability 
framework, including strong management infrastructure and controls, to 
drive its agency transformation effort, and to address long-standing 
program issues. As a part of ongoing work to monitor AOC's efforts to 
implement the recommendations, we issued a report in January 2004 that 
covered the agency's progress from January 18, 2003, through November 
30, 2003.

In our January 2004 report, we reiterated that many of AOC's management 
problems are long-standing and that organizational transformation would 
take time to accomplish. Not surprisingly, AOC's efforts to address the 
35 recommendations were, at that time, very much a work in progress. We 
highlighted the agency's first steps to develop a management and 
accountability framework, including the issuance of a draft strategic 
plan and efforts to strengthen individual accountability for goals. We 
noted, however, that additional steps were needed to enhance 
communications with congressional and other stakeholders and employees. 
In addition, we found that AOC began to draft new human capital 
policies and procedures and developed three broad-based action plans to 
help institutionalize financial management best practices, although 
many of the actions were not scheduled for completion until 2007.

We also reported that AOC was making progress developing an agencywide 
approach to information technology (IT) management, although additional 
steps were needed to ensure that, for example, mature information 
security management, investment management, and enterprise 
architecture (EA) management processes are implemented. In addition, we 
found that AOC was beginning to address worker safety concerns by 
developing a hazard assessment and control policy, although it is not 
expected to be fully implemented until May 2006; was taking steps to 
establish a project prioritization framework for better management and 
accountability; and was progressing toward adopting a more strategic 
approach to recycling. Overall, we concluded that AOC fulfilled three 
recommendations, and we made four additional recommendations--which 
brought to 36 the number of open recommendations.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report is part of our effort under a congressional mandate to 
monitor AOC's progress to establish a strategic management and 
accountability framework, improve its management infrastructure and 
internal control, and address long-standing areas of concern. Our first 
objective was to assess AOC's progress over the 6-month period from 
December 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004, on eight key issues that 
deserve near-term attention and focus: (1) stakeholder involvement, (2) 
employee communications, (3) auditable financial statements and related 
internal controls, (4) financial reporting for operating units and cost 
accounting, (5) information security management, (6) worker safety 
performance measures, (7) Capitol complex master planning, and (8) 
strategic management of recycling. Our second objective, which was 
mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public 
Law 108-7), was to assess AOC's COO action plan that was issued in 
December 2003.

To address our first objective, we collected documentation to determine 
AOC's progress on addressing each key issue and the 16 corresponding 
prior recommendations. For example, we reviewed documents such as AOC's 
5-year strategic and annual performance plans; strategic communications 
plan; process manuals; funds control administration order; policy for 
inventory management; security risk management policy; information 
security training, education, and awareness policy; IT security metrics 
policy; inspection, audit, and evaluation policy; and updated 
occupational safety and health program plan. We also interviewed AOC 
officials responsible for implementing the 16 recommendations and other 
related improvement efforts under way at AOC.

To address our second objective, we reviewed and analyzed several 
documents, including (1) the requirements of the Deputy Architect/Chief 
Operating Officer Action Plan described in the legislation; (2) the 
Report to the Congress from the Deputy Architect/Chief Operating 
Officer, dated December 22, 2003; (3) the Deputy Architect/Chief 
Operating Officer Action Plan, dated December 22, 2003; and (4) the 
Architect of the Capitol Strategic Plan, dated December 15, 2003.

We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., from April 2004 through July 
2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards.

AOC Has Yet to Fully Engage Congressional and Other Stakeholders: 

AOC must perform its duties in an environment that requires balancing 
the divergent needs of congressional leadership, committees, individual 
members of Congress, congressional staffs, and the visiting public. The 
challenges of operating in this environment were complicated by the 
events of September 11, 2001, and the resulting need for increased 
security. As we stated in our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, it 
is critical for AOC to engage Congress and other stakeholders to ensure 
that its strategic and other planning efforts fully consider the 
interests and expectations of these stakeholders. Successful 
stakeholder involvement requires continuously engaging Congress and 
other stakeholders to obtain their input and feedback for 
organizational or operational changes at AOC, ensuring that AOC's 
finite resources are efficiently targeted at the highest project 
priorities, and fostering a basic understanding with Congress and other 
stakeholders of how to balance competing demands. Successful 
stakeholder involvement also includes improving AOC's accountability 
reporting, which helps communicate what AOC has accomplished and its 
plan for continued progress.

In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations that would 
help AOC improve its relations with Congress and other stakeholders: 

* Improve strategic planning and organizational alignment by involving 
key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC's strategic 
planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may result from 
these efforts.

* Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 
communications by improving annual accountability reporting through 
annual performance planning and reporting.

* Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 
communications by completing the development of congressional protocols 
by involving stakeholders.

As noted in our January 2004 report, AOC improved its strategic 
planning process and provided more specificity to its strategic goals 
and objectives, as well as developed milestone dates and actions to 
assist AOC in monitoring its progress. AOC also made progress in 
improving annual accountability reporting by implementing a strategic 
management framework, which includes issuing a strategic plan every 2 
years, developing an annual performance plan, and developing an annual 
performance report that discusses how AOC is progressing on meeting its 
goals, as well as holding midyear status briefings. An AOC official 
stated the agency recognizes that the next step in the strategic 
planning process is to more fully incorporate outcome-and performance-
based measures into the agency's strategic and performance plans, and 
AOC has recently developed a statement of work to seek assistance in 
developing both quantitative and qualitative performance measures to 
demonstrate progress toward its strategic goals and objectives. In 
addition, we noted that AOC was partially addressing the development of 
congressional protocols. To further assist these efforts, we made an 
additional recommendation for AOC to conduct a pilot of its 
congressional protocols in one or more of its jurisdictions to 
determine how well its protocols would work in addressing customer 
requests for service while balancing the needs of multiple requests 
with the requirements of the strategic plan and corresponding project 
priorities of the agency.

During the 6-month review period, AOC did not fully engage its 
congressional and other stakeholders. For example, AOC has not reached 
agreement with Congress on how best to develop a clear, transparent, 
and documented understanding of how AOC sets project priorities and how 
progress will be assessed. In addition, as detailed in other sections 
of this report, AOC needs to expand Congress' involvement in the 
development of the Capitol complex master plan and the mission and 
goals for the agency's recycling program. AOC did take some steps to 
inform these stakeholders by delivering planning documents to Congress, 
responding to requests for information, and attending monthly or 
biweekly meetings with congressional stakeholders. AOC officials stated 
that they delivered AOC's final strategic plan, performance plan, and 
COO action plan to congressional stakeholders in December 2003 to 
inform them of planned activities. (See our assessment of the COO 
action plan below.) AOC also generated a detailed report, at the 
request of its congressional stakeholders, that outlined AOC's progress 
in implementing our recommendations. Furthermore, AOC did take some 
steps to communicate with congressional and other stakeholders by 
attending monthly meetings held by House leadership; biweekly meetings 
with other House stakeholders, such as the House Clerk and Sergeant At 
Arms; monthly meetings with the Senate Rules Committee; and bimonthly 
meetings with the Senate Sergeant At Arms. AOC is also preparing to 
issue its third building services customer satisfaction survey in June 
2004 to measure the agency's performance. However, it has yet to 
release the results of the 2003 survey, which was originally scheduled 
for December 2003, because it has yet to be approved by several AOC 
jurisdictions.

As we reported in January 2003, AOC drafted an initial set of 
congressional protocols to help AOC work with its congressional 
customers using clearly defined, consistently applied, and transparent 
policies and procedures. Since then, AOC completed draft congressional 
protocols and submitted them to key congressional stakeholders. An AOC 
official stated that, based on stakeholder feedback, the protocols are 
not viable because congressional stakeholders do not believe they are 
applicable to the operation of and services conducted by AOC. Based on 
this feedback, an AOC official said that the agency may not pursue 
implementing the congressional protocols.

As a legislative branch agency, we have found congressional protocols 
to be a successful vehicle in helping us work with Congress. Successful 
development and implementation of these protocols first required us to 
reach out to and solicit feedback from congressional and other 
stakeholders to develop an understanding of congressional customer 
needs and identify concerns before we developed an initial draft. 
Further, we continuously engaged our congressional and other 
stakeholders throughout pilot testing and implementation. Thus, if AOC 
decides not to further pursue the congressional protocols or some other 
vehicle, neither AOC nor congressional stakeholders can be assured that 
agency efforts and resources are targeted at their highest project 
priorities and transparency exists for strategic and tactical decisions 
and trade-offs.

AOC has taken some steps to involve congressional and other 
stakeholders; however, it has yet to fully engage these stakeholders. 
AOC can strengthen its stakeholder relationships by informing 
congressional and other stakeholders of AOC's progress and activities, 
as well as more effectively consulting with these stakeholders to build 
a mutual understanding of each other's priorities.

Recommendations for Agency Action: 

To strengthen the relationship between AOC and its congressional and 
other stakeholders, we recommend the Architect of the Capitol direct 
the Chief Operating Officer to: 

* actively consult with Congress on the design and implementation of 
meaningful outcome-and performance-based measures that are useful to 
both AOC and Congress and thereby enable AOC and Congress to assess 
AOC's progress;

* expedite the release of the 2003 building services customer 
satisfaction survey, as a transparency and accountability mechanism and 
to provide Congress and other stakeholders assurance that actions are 
being taken in response to their feedback; and: 

* work with Congress on the design and implementation of a transparent 
process to facilitate an understanding between AOC and its 
congressional stakeholders about how AOC targets its efforts and 
resources at the highest project priorities and how strategic and 
tactical decisions and trade-offs are made.

AOC Has Made Progress toward Implementing an Employee Communications 
Strategy: 

Strong internal communication with employees is vital to any 
organizational transformation by helping employees understand their 
contribution to overall agency goals and facilitate feedback that helps 
an organization develop strategies for improvement. Strong employee 
communications would also help AOC address its history of employee 
relations problems and complaints. Effective communication efforts 
include receiving employee input, which can be obtained from existing 
offices that interact directly with employees, or via other methods, 
including employee surveys or focus groups. Regardless of the source, 
systematically collecting and analyzing employee data are important for 
identifying agencywide issues affecting employee relations and 
improving human capital policies and procedures. Another useful 
practice for dealing with issues affecting employee relations and 
collecting employee data is to establish an ombudsperson position.

In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations to improve 
AOC's ability to communicate with employees: 

* Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 
communications by providing opportunities for routine employee input 
and feedback.

* Strengthen AOC's human capital policies, procedures, and processes by 
assessing ways in which AOC management could better gather and analyze 
data from the various employee relations offices and employee advisory 
council while maintaining employee confidentiality.

* Establish a direct reporting relationship between the ombudsperson 
and the Architect consistent with professional standards.

In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was partially addressing 
the development of a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and 
external communications. As such, we made an additional recommendation 
for AOC to gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or 
surveys before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is 
taking actions to address any identified employee concerns.

Over the 6-month period reviewed, AOC continued to make progress 
addressing employee communications by obtaining employee input and 
providing employees with feedback, as well as assessing the data 
gathered during these efforts. To help implement these steps, AOC 
management issued a communications plan, a draft employee feedback 
manual, a customer satisfaction survey manual, and a focus group guide. 
Specifically, AOC's Employee Feedback Process Manual stated that it is 
AOC's policy "to periodically and systematically obtain and report 
employee feedback, to assess satisfaction levels on activity-related 
topics, and to use this feedback in improvement actions."[Footnote 5]

To obtain employee input and provide employee feedback, AOC developed a 
guide that outlines procedures for conducting focus groups and 
discusses AOC's intent to contract out the facilitation of focus 
groups. AOC management also prepared a statement of work that provides 
requirements a contractor must follow when conducting focus groups, 
including a requirement for providing a written report containing 
general conclusions and findings. AOC officials stated that they 
awarded the contract on June 28, 2003, to facilitate AOC's focus 
groups, so they may begin no later than August 1, 2004.

AOC also obtains employee input by requiring key managers to document 
and track employees' concerns or issues each month. Key AOC officials 
from AOC's Employee Assistance Programs, Labor Relations, Employment 
Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity, Employee Advisory Council (EAC), 
senior management, and Human Resources Management Division (HRMD) meet 
monthly to assess employee concerns and identify systematic concerns. 
Agency officials stated that at each of the meetings, all attendees are 
reminded that employee confidentiality must be maintained. In May 2004, 
the attendees agreed to pursue a number of actions in response to 
employee concerns discussed at the monthly meetings. Furthermore, AOC 
has included as an objective in its Human Capital Plan to solicit 
feedback from its EAC. AOC also plans to use exit interviews to collect 
employees' views upon leaving AOC as well as regularly obtain input 
from employees through its customer satisfaction surveys, to gauge 
AOC's internal customers', including employees', perceptions of AOC's 
performance.

To provide feedback to its employees, AOC continues to publish its 
weekly and quarterly agencywide newsletters (AOC This Week and Shop 
Talk) and issues HR Bulletins that provide updates on changes in human 
resource practices and highlight information regarding issues such as 
employee benefits. AOC also published a pamphlet that summarizes the 
agency's strategic plan. According to agency officials, every AOC 
employee has received a copy of the pamphlet, while "town hall" 
briefings have been held with over 400 employees to further discuss the 
strategic plan.

Regarding the use of an ombudsperson, AOC officials agreed with the 
recommendation in our January 2004 report to adhere to the standard of 
independence for the office of an ombudsperson. Agency officials also 
noted that direct meetings between the Ombudsperson and the Architect 
were planned, but they never took place because the Ombudsperson's 
contract expired on September 30, 2003, and the position has not been 
filled. AOC does not have plans to fill the position of ombudsperson. 
According to AOC officials, the ombudsperson was to serve as an 
independent provider of advice and counsel to nonunion employees on 
employment policies, practices, and other employment-related matters. 
The ombudsperson's duties and responsibilities focused on resolving 
employee issues that may have not been resolved by other offices, 
according to AOC officials.

AOC has made progress in addressing employee communications issues by 
creating the basic framework in its communications plan and process 
manuals by which AOC will regularly obtain employee input, 
systematically analyze those data, and provide feedback to employees on 
improvement actions that results from those efforts. For instance, AOC 
has committed itself to initiating employee focus groups not later than 
August 1, 2004. AOC also needs to issue and implement its draft 
Employee Feedback Manual. AOC can maintain momentum in this area by 
fully implementing the policies and procedures that it drafted or 
issued as part of its employee communication efforts. As we noted in 
our October 2003 report on the Government Printing Office's 
transformation,[Footnote 6] developing a comprehensive communications 
strategy that reaches out to employees and seeks to engage them in a 
two-way exchange helps to build trust and cultivate stronger working 
relationships. Most important, AOC's top leadership must make visible 
and timely adjustments as appropriate in policy or procedures in 
response to employee concerns.

AOC's decision to not fill the vacant ombudsperson position raises 
questions as to whether the services previously provided by the 
ombudsperson are being met by other offices or are no longer needed. 
Given the history of employee relations issues at AOC, a critical 
component of such a management decision would be to conduct a thorough 
analysis of the agency's and employees' needs, as well as an assessment 
of the capacity of existing offices, both internal and external to AOC, 
to fulfill those needs. Without a thorough analysis AOC cannot be 
assured that the need for an ombudsperson no longer exists, or that AOC 
units are prepared to fulfill the responsibilities an ombudsperson 
would have performed.

Recommendations for Agency Action: 

To improve communications with employees, we recommend that the 
Architect of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to: 

* fully and effectively implement the basic framework as defined in its 
communications plan and process manuals, and finalize its draft 
employee feedback manual to assure that the current progress already 
made is maintained and: 

* conduct an analysis of both AOC management and employee needs with 
respect to resolving employee concerns and issues, as well as assessing 
the capacity of existing offices to fulfill those needs.

Progress Made in Preparing Auditable Financial Statements and 
Establishing Related Internal Controls: 

Preparing auditable financial statements and establishing related 
internal controls are fundamental components of a foundation of control 
and accountability. In our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, we 
discussed the value of a system of checks and balances over assets and 
financial reporting. These steps are a key foundation for implementing 
our January 2003 recommendation that AOC continue to improve its 
approach to financial management by institutionalizing practices that 
will support budgeting, financial, and program management.[Footnote 7] 
AOC's goals of preparing auditable financial statements and 
establishing effective internal controls are significant components of 
AOC's plan to build a foundation of financial control and 
accountability--one of the three broad-based action plans established 
by AOC's Office of Chief Financial Officer to respond to our 
recommendation.

In preparing for an audit of its September 30, 2003, balance sheet, AOC 
prepared a full set of agencywide financial statements for fiscal year 
2003 and has, in fiscal year 2004, begun preparing quarterly agencywide 
financial statements. This first-ever audit of AOC's balance sheet is 
nearing completion and AOC officials expect the auditor's report to be 
issued in the near future. Completing the first agencywide balance 
sheet audit represents a key step in AOC's efforts to build a 
foundation of financial control and accountability. As we reported in 
January 2004, AOC planned to begin issuing a complete set of audited 
financial statements for fiscal year 2004. However, according to AOC 
officials, the fiscal year 2003 audit has taken longer and required 
more effort to support than initially planned and, as a result, 
management has now modified its plan for the fiscal year 2004 audit. In 
particular, AOC officials noted that establishing the historical cost 
for AOC building and improvement assets and values for AOC liabilities 
took longer and required more work than initially expected. AOC has 
decided to forgo an audit of a complete set of financial statements for 
fiscal year 2004 and instead will have its September 30, 2004, balance 
sheet audited. According to AOC officials, after consulting with AOC's 
audit committee and its auditor, AOC decided to defer the audit of a 
full set of statements to fiscal year 2005 because of the limited time 
and CFO staff resources available to begin preparing for an audit of a 
complete set of statements for fiscal year 2004 and the need to work on 
strengthening internal controls, including ongoing efforts to address 
issues identified during the fiscal year 2003 audit. In conjunction 
with the audit of the September 30, 2004, balance sheet, AOC officials 
plan to ask the external auditor to perform additional procedures, 
which will be designed to help AOC better prepare for the audit of a 
complete set of AOC financial statements for fiscal year 2005. However, 
even though the auditor's work for fiscal year 2004 will be limited to 
a balance sheet audit and some additional procedures, AOC has not 
revised its stated goal of receiving an unqualified opinion on a 
complete set of fiscal year 2005 financial statements.

Regarding progress on internal controls during the 6-month period, AOC 
has adopted and implemented key policies and procedures in the areas of 
account reconciliations and funds control administration, and 
institutionalized its policies on inventory management and control. In 
addition, during this period, AOC's external auditor has, as part of 
the balance sheet audit, been reviewing relevant internal controls. 
Account reconciliations, such as those adopted by AOC for accounts 
receivable and fund balance with Treasury, are a fundamental control 
over financial reporting. Funds control administration is a group of 
control processes that provide a means of establishing responsibilities 
and delegating authority to the managers who are to be accountable for 
the use and control of appropriated funds. In addition, AOC has made 
progress in institutionalizing its policies on inventory management and 
control. AOC finalized an inventory management policy in January 2004 
and, shortly thereafter, initiated a major effort to train all 
inventory personnel on related procedures and controls. According to 
AOC officials, implementation of these policies and procedures came 
about as part of efforts to prepare the fiscal year 2003 agencywide 
financial statements. Finally, as we discussed, AOC expects the auditor 
to report on the results of the audit, including its internal control 
work, in the near future. The results of the auditor's internal control 
work will provide AOC with valuable information as it pursues other 
efforts to strengthen internal controls and enhance financial control 
and accountability.

We reported in January 2004 that AOC plans to issue a policy statement 
on internal controls by September 30, 2004. In this regard, AOC has 
begun the process of obtaining contractor support to assist management 
in developing an internal control framework, a related policy statement 
on internal controls, and related training. To speed their efforts and 
enhance its acceptance within the agency, AOC officials hope to model 
their internal control framework and related guidance after ones that 
are currently in use elsewhere in the legislative branch. As AOC 
prepares to implement an internal control framework, AOC needs to 
realize that establishing appropriate and effective accounting, 
compliance, and operational controls, which potentially may affect all 
aspects of AOC operations and activities, represents a significant 
agencywide challenge--one that will require senior management attention 
and support.

During the 6-month review period, AOC made progress in preparing 
agencywide financial statements; supporting the audit of its September 
30, 2003, balance sheet; and establishing related internal control 
policies and procedures. This progress provides a valuable baseline 
from which to further leverage the audit process through related 
efforts to improve internal controls over financial reporting and 
institutionalize financial management best practices. In addition, as 
plans move forward for a full scope audit of a complete set of 
financial statements for fiscal year 2005, AOC needs to provide strong 
and visible support for these efforts.

Recommendation for Agency Action: 

To help strengthen and sustain AOC's emerging foundation of financial 
accountability and control, we recommend that the Architect of the 
Capitol, the Chief Operating Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, and 
other senior management provide strong and visible support for efforts 
to prepare auditable financial statements and implement an effective 
internal control framework by monitoring the implementation and related 
milestones for each effort, ensuring the commitment to and support for 
each effort by participating AOC units, and acting to resolve any 
impediments that may arise.

Substantial Work Remains on Providing Financial Reporting for Operating 
Units and Implementing Cost Accounting Processes and Procedures: 

Developing and using meaningful financial reports by major operating 
units and implementing effective cost accounting processes and 
procedures can help extend responsibility for financial accountability 
and control to AOC's operating units. An important aspect of having 
meaningful financial information available to managers in operating 
units is the ability to implement an appropriate level of cost 
accounting processes and procedures that can provide the kind of cost 
information needed to effectively manage operations. Using financial 
information at the major operating unit level that incorporates 
effective cost accounting processes and procedures can be a key 
component of AOC's ongoing efforts to institutionalize financial 
management best practices in support of budgeting, financial, and 
program management at AOC.[Footnote 8]

AOC has made progress in developing the capacity to produce automated 
financial reports for its major operating units (jurisdictions). The 
financial reports, which currently consist of financial statements for 
each major operating unit, are developed with the same basic processes 
and data used to produce AOC's agencywide financial statements. AOC 
officials said that operating unit financial reports have not yet been 
provided to managers because CFO staff need to conduct an initial 
review and analysis of their content and operational managers need to 
receive some training on the content of the reported information and 
how it might be useful to them. AOC officials expect to begin 
distributing the financial reports and providing related training to 
operating unit managers by the end of March 2005. AOC officials 
acknowledged that providing managers with financial-statement-level 
information for their major operating units is only an initial step in 
developing financial and cost-related information that managers can use 
to enhance their operations.

AOC's December 2003 performance plan makes provisions for a multiyear 
plan for establishing AOC's cost accounting goals and objectives and 
identifying and implementing system and procedural changes needed to 
accomplish them. However, the plan calls for only limited work to be 
completed through the end of fiscal year 2005, with major work 
scheduled for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2007 to identify and 
implement system and procedural changes needed to have a cost 
accounting system operational in fiscal year 2008.

In explaining the limited near-term progress planned for implementing 
cost accounting, AOC officials noted that successfully implementing 
cost accounting depends on an organization's strategic goals, 
objectives, and related performance measures, which tend to drive the 
categories of costs and how the related data should be collected and 
reported. However, AOC officials noted that a recent AOC effort to 
study the potential for developing performance-based budgets indicated 
that AOC's current strategic and performance plans do not define either 
the expected level of program performance or the actual results that 
should be achieved. Recognizing these limitations, AOC's recently 
issued Cost Accounting Feasibility Study noted that AOC staff working 
on strategic planning are developing an agencywide approach that will 
identify appropriate and consistent performance metrics across major 
operating units. The effort is scheduled for completion some time in 
fiscal year 2005. The December 2003 performance plan indicates that the 
CFO staff plan to begin substantive work on the underlying studies and 
analyses needed to support recommendations on implementing cost 
accounting at AOC in fiscal year 2006. In explaining the schedule for 
implementing cost accounting, AOC officials said that it made more 
sense to defer substantive work on implementing cost accounting until 
agencywide performance measures and metrics are established, especially 
in light of the other ongoing tasks and priorities that the CFO's 
office is responsible for leading.

While AOC can now generate financial reports for major operating units 
annually and quarterly, substantial work remains to be done to conduct 
an initial review and analyze the form and content of the recently 
developed reports and to train operating managers on the information's 
content and its potential use in managing and overseeing operating 
units. Also, while it may now be relatively easy and efficient to 
generate quarterly and annual financial reports for major operating 
units consisting of financial-statement-level information, it is not 
clear at this time how useful operating managers will find the 
information they contain. In addition, AOC does not have outcome and 
performance-based measures and metrics that can be used by operating 
managers to link financial information to outcomes and performance. As 
a result, substantial work remains to be done before AOC can provide 
managers with the meaningful financial, cost, and performance 
information needed to enhance their management of operating units and 
extend responsibility for financial accountability and control to the 
units.

We consider AOC's ongoing efforts to provide managers with operating 
unit financial information and training on the meaning and potential 
use of such information to be good initial steps in orienting AOC's 
managers on the use of financial data to enhance operational 
management. However, once the managers are provided with timely 
financial statements for major operating units and the related 
training, AOC officials need to work with operating managers to assess 
the usefulness of the financial-statement-level information and to 
identify opportunities to expand or otherwise enhance the nature and 
type of information (e.g., detailed cost accounting information for 
specific projects and operating activities) made available to managers.

With regard to cost accounting, AOC does not have the cost accounting 
processes and procedures needed to produce operation-specific cost 
information that can be used by managers to enhance their management of 
major operating units. Furthermore, AOC officials noted that they do 
not expect to begin substantive work on a multiyear effort to develop 
and implement system and procedural changes necessary to implement 
appropriate cost accounting at AOC until fiscal year 2006. The 
officials anticipate completing the needed system and procedural 
changes in fiscal year 2007 and having a cost accounting system 
operational in fiscal year 2008.

AOC officials acknowledged that, in the interim, some opportunity 
exists to develop and apply selected high-level cost allocations that 
would allocate--over some reasonable basis--selected categories of 
overhead costs (e.g., the costs associated with operating functional 
activities such as human resources, finance, and budget) to major 
operating units. However, the officials also noted that the value or 
usefulness of such information is limited by the lack of specific cost 
accounting data on performance measures and metrics. The officials 
noted that the allocations would be, by their nature, done after the 
fact and operating unit managers would likely have little to no 
reasonable frame of reference or perspective on the level of overhead 
costs allocated to their operating unit or how those costs relate to 
their unit.

While each of the reasons cited by AOC officials to support the 
anticipated time frame for implementing the needed cost accounting 
system has merit, we think it is reasonable to determine whether, prior 
to fiscal year 2006, substantial work can begin on the underlying 
studies and analyses that will be needed to identify options and 
develop tentative recommendations for implementing a cost accounting 
system at AOC. In addition, it is important for the CFO's office to 
actively support and facilitate AOC's efforts to develop organizational 
performance measures and metrics, which along with cost accounting 
information can be tracked and used to improve the operations and 
management of AOC's major operating units. As we noted in our January 
2003 report, it is also important for management to demonstrate its 
commitment to making and supporting needed changes, which include 
implementing operating unit financial reports and cost accounting 
throughout the organization.

Recommendations for Agency Actions: 

To enhance the successful development of useful financial, cost, and 
performance reporting for major operating units and appropriate cost 
accounting, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol direct the 
Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Financial Officer to: 

* work with operating managers to assess the usefulness of financial-
statement-level information, take an active role in AOC near-term 
efforts to develop agencywide performance measures, and review all 
available options to determine whether substantial work can begin, 
prior to fiscal year 2006, on the analyses needed to identify changes 
necessary to implement useful cost accounting at AOC, and: 

* have senior management visibly demonstrate its continuing commitment 
to and support for making AOC-wide system, procedural, and cultural 
changes necessary to provide managers with timely financial, cost, and 
performance information by monitoring the efforts' implementation and 
related milestones, ensuring the commitment to and support for the 
efforts by participating AOC units, and acting to resolve any 
impediments that may arise.

AOC Has Continued to Make Progress Implementing Its Information 
Security Program: 

Information security is an important consideration for any organization 
that depends on information technology to carry out its mission. 
Without the proper safeguards, unauthorized access to systems can 
result in disclosure of sensitive information, fraud, disruption to 
operations, or attacks against other organizations' sites.

In our January 2003 report, we stated that effective information 
security management is critical to AOC's ability to ensure the 
reliability, availability, and confidentiality of its information 
technology assets. Such AOC assets include the Computer-Aided 
Facilities Management system that is used to request and fulfill work 
orders for maintenance of the Capitol and the surrounding grounds, and 
the Records Management system that is used to archive architectural 
drawings pertaining to the U.S. Capitol, Library of Congress, Botanic 
Garden, and other buildings. We also reported that AOC took important 
steps to establish an effective information security program, but that 
much remained to be done before the agency would be in a position to 
effectively safeguard its information and technology assets. 
Accordingly, we recommended that the agency establish and implement an 
information security program. More specifically, we recommended that 
AOC (1) designate a security officer and provide him or her with the 
authority and resources to implement an agencywide security program, 
(2) develop policies for security training and awareness and provide 
the associated training, (3) develop and implement policies and 
guidance to perform risk assessments continually, (4) use the results 
of the risk assessments to develop and implement appropriate controls, 
and (5) monitor and evaluate policy and control effectiveness.

In our January 2004 report, we stated that AOC laid some of the 
foundation for establishing an effective security program, such as 
designating an information security officer, giving this official the 
authority and responsibility to implement an agencywide security 
program, and beginning to draft information security policies. We also 
reported that AOC partially allocated the resources needed to begin to 
implement its security program, although more work remained to define 
and then execute the program. For example, we reported that AOC needed 
to follow through on its stated commitments to provide needed program 
resources, finalize its security policies, define processes for 
implementing the policies, and implement them.

Since then, AOC has continued to make progress in implementing our 
recommendations, but important work remains in five basic areas of 
information security management. First, AOC has contracted to conduct 
security operations, risk management, policy assessment, and metrics 
activities, but it still needs to provide resources to its security 
program, including hiring two security specialists to conduct system 
risk assessments. Second, AOC has developed security training and 
awareness policies and began implementing them, but it still needs to 
provide the training and awareness to all employees who use information 
technology assets. Third, AOC has developed policies and guidance to 
perform system risk assessments and conducted risk assessments on 
agency mission-critical support systems, but it still needs to complete 
assessments on 4 mission-critical major applications and 34 other 
agency systems. Fourth, AOC has developed guidance that for resolving 
identified risks and begun implementing it on those support systems 
that it has assessed, but it still needs to develop and implement 
controls to address any risks that may be identified by the yet-to-be-
completed assessments. Fifth, AOC has defined a metrics policy and a 
plan for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of its controls 
and begun measuring its support systems controls, and it plans to 
complete initial data gathering on defined metrics by December 2004 and 
report on them by March 2005. However, the agency still needs to do the 
same for any controls assessments implemented as a result of any yet-
to-be compiled risks.

AOC plans to complete work in most of these areas over the next 8 
months. Specifically, it plans to (1) expedite the modification of an 
existing contract to hire two security specialists by August 2, 2004; 
(2) complete security awareness activities for all AOC employees 
between July and the end of November 2004, develop role-based security 
training and begin implementing it in fiscal year 2006; (3) complete 
the risk assessments on its mission-critical major applications by 
September 30, 2004; (4) subsequently develop and implement controls to 
address any risks identified by the yet to be completed assessments; 
and (5) complete the initial data gathering on security policy and 
control metrics by December 2004 and issue its first report on their 
effectiveness by March 2005.

As we reported in January 2003, successfully completing these plans 
depends in large part on the commitment and leadership of AOC senior 
managers. Such commitment and leadership will require the timely 
allocation and application of needed resources and close oversight of 
plan execution. Without such support and the resultant improvements to 
AOC's information security management capabilities, the agency will be 
challenged in its ability to effectively safeguard its data and 
information assets.

AOC Has Made Progress in Developing Safety Performance Measures, but 
Implementation of Measures Are a Work in Progress: 

Worker safety has been a long-standing concern at AOC because it has 
had higher injury and illness rates than many other federal agencies. 
As we stated in our January 2003 and January 2004 reports, identifying, 
developing, and implementing performance measures is important for 
holding employees and management accountable, evaluating the 
effectiveness of the safety training curriculum, and reducing workers' 
compensation injuries and costs. These performance measures are an 
important link between the achievement of AOC's safety plan goals and 
the organizations' strategic goals. Moreover, meaningful, transparent, 
and timely performance measures are critical to worker safety efforts 
because they help organizations gather feedback on performance, 
evaluate the effectiveness of policies, and make worker safety the 
cultural norm.

In our January 2003 report, we made three recommendations that relate 
to AOC developing performance measures to track worker safety across 
the organization: 

* Identify performance measures for safety goals and objectives, 
including measures for how AOC will implement the 43 specialized safety 
programs[Footnote 9] and how superintendents and employees will be held 
accountable for achieving results.

* Establish a safety training curriculum that fully supports all of the 
goals of the safety program and further evaluate the effectiveness of 
the training provided.

* Establish a senior management work group that will routinely discuss 
workers' compensation cases and costs and develop strategies to reduce 
these injuries and costs.

In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was making progress in 
addressing all three of these recommendations.

Over the 6 months we reviewed, AOC made progress in developing 
performance measures to track the agency's worker safety efforts, but 
the implementation of these measures is a work in progress. AOC 
developed several broad performance measures to judge the success of 
its safety and health program. First, AOC developed a measure of the 
number and severity of safety and health deficiencies that exist at AOC 
(a baseline assessment was completed). Second, AOC developed a measure 
to assess employees' attitudes and beliefs about safety within their 
organization--a gauge of employees' perceptions of safety at 
AOC.[Footnote 10] The initial survey was administered between December 
2003 and January 2004. In February 2004, AOC completed analysis of the 
survey responses and developed recommendations to improve worker 
perceptions about safety. Finally, AOC uses the rate at which employees 
suffer a job-related injury and illness to monitor workplace safety as 
established by the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA). AOC discussed its injury and illness rate in 
public testimony to demonstrate its commitment to a safe and healthy 
work environment.

AOC is also developing specific performance measures related to worker 
safety. First, AOC senior management, through quarterly council 
meetings known as the Safety, Health and Environmental Council (SHEC), 
has developed measures to assess and control workers' compensation 
costs including (1) the number and severity of injuries and illnesses, 
(2) the number and cost of workers' compensation injuries and 
illnesses, (3) the number of lost production days associated with 
workers' compensation cases, and (4) the number of modified work 
assignments. In addition, SHEC has developed several tools aimed at 
raising employee awareness of safety and the link between safety and 
workers' compensation. Second, AOC has developed performance measures 
for several of the 34 safety policies. The purpose of the safety 
policies is to establish consistent requirements for AOC with agencies 
such as OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency. These safety 
policy measures include (1) the number of safety inspections and audits 
performed, (2) the number of safety deficiencies, and (3) the number of 
employees trained. Finally, AOC has continued to assess training 
performance by asking participants to evaluate training courses; having 
subject matter experts from the Safety, Fire, and Environmental Program 
Office audit the courses; and soliciting informal feedback from 
participants' supervisors. Moreover, AOC has begun to notice that 
safety training participants are applying lessons learned from 
training. For example, AOC officials reported that training on blood-
borne pathogens resulted in employees applying the principles learned 
during a recent event. In addition, AOC plans to assess employee 
knowledge and behavior to ensure compliance with the policy, including 
interviewing employees on the requirements of a jurisdictional standard 
operating procedure. However, AOC has made little progress on 
developing tools necessary for more complex assessments of its training 
and development efforts, such as measuring their impact on overall 
program or organizational results, or comparing the benefits of 
training efforts against their costs. We have previously reported on 
the potential value--and challenges--associated with these more complex 
approaches of assessing training and development.[Footnote 11] When 
deciding on an evaluation strategy, agencies (such as AOC) should 
select an appropriate analytical approach that will best measure the 
effect of their programs while also considering what is realistic and 
reasonable given the broader context and fiscal constraints.

AOC has made progress in its safety performance measures. However, AOC 
can strengthen its efforts to evaluate workplace safety. First, while 
AOC's measure of the number and severity of safety and health 
deficiencies is a positive step, time frames to correct these 
deficiencies still need to be established. Although AOC has plans to 
develop a measure of the timeline in which hazards and deficiencies are 
corrected, it has yet to complete this measure. Second, while the 
safety perception survey provided information on how employees' 
perceive safety in their work environment, the full potential of this 
tool has not been fully recognized. AOC officials stated that the 
survey should not be considered a measure of safety performance and 
have no plans to administer the survey on a recurring basis. However, 
the survey is a valuable performance measure of employees' perceptions 
about workplace safety and could prove useful if conducted in the 
future. For any future use, AOC would need to first address design and 
implementation weaknesses. For example, pretests of the survey were not 
conducted, survey instructions were poorly worded, the questions 
allowed for a biased response, and the design did not allow for a non-
response analysis. Moreover, given the low response rate of frontline 
employees, AOC should be hesitant to represent findings as reflective 
of the employee population.

AOC has fulfilled our third worker safety recommendation listed above 
by developing performance measures to assess the long-term impacts and 
trends of workers' compensation injuries and costs. Through SHEC, 
safety officials working with HRMD are coordinating an exchange of 
information and data in order to control workers' compensation injuries 
and costs. HRMD, through its Workers' Compensation Program Unit, 
gathers work-related injury and illness data. In addition, the 
increased emphasis on safety and its relationship to workers' 
compensation injuries and illnesses is being promoted at SHEC meetings.

Recommendation for Agency Action: 

To enhance worker safety performance measures at AOC, we recommend that 
the Architect of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to 
expand upon its safety perception survey by developing a more rigorous 
methodological approach and collecting such information on a more 
regular basis.

AOC Has Taken Steps to Develop a Capitol Complex Master Plan, but Lack 
of Congressional and Other Stakeholder Involvement and Delays Hamper 
Additional Progress: 

Developing a Capitol complex master plan is critical to strategic 
project management because it would help facilitate consistent 
management and oversight of projects and establish long-term 
priorities. A key component of a master plan is conducting facility 
condition assessments (FCA), which are systematic evaluations of an 
organization's capital assets. Such evaluations would help AOC to 
"compare conditions between facilities; provide accurate and 
supportable information for planning and justifying budgets; facilitate 
the establishment of funding priorities; and develop budget and funding 
analyses and strategies."[Footnote 12] FCAs also help to assure that 
the Capitol complex's preventative maintenance needs are fully 
documented and provide data for an overall plan with which to address 
those needs. Further, a Capitol complex master plan could help guide 
day-to-day prioritization by being the basis for communicating, both 
internally and externally, the trade-offs that result from prioritizing 
one project over another, or how individual projects fit within a 
broader AOC framework.

In our January 2003 report, we identified two recommendations that 
would help AOC facilitate consistent management and oversight of 
projects and establish long-term priorities: 

* Develop a Capitol complex master plan and complete condition 
assessments of all buildings and facilities under the jurisdiction of 
AOC.

* Develop a process for assigning project priorities that is based on 
clearly-defined, well-documented, consistently-applied, and 
transparent criteria.

In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC was making progress 
initiating the Capitol complex master planning process, although the 
expected completion date had already been pushed back 8 months to 
December 2006. FCAs for the three largest jurisdictions were also 
behind the original schedule because all the contracts were not to be 
awarded until December 2003. AOC was also making progress creating a 
clearly defined, well-documented, and transparent process for 
evaluating and prioritizing projects by developing criteria to managers 
for scoring projects across five rating areas--preservation, impact on 
mission, economic impact, safety, and security.

During the 6-month review period, AOC took steps to develop the Capitol 
complex master plan. For example, senior AOC officials reported that 
the contract for the Capitol complex master plan would be awarded in 
August 2004. These officials also stated that work has been initiated 
on a facilities plan for the House office buildings, which will be 
incorporated into the Capitol complex master plan. FCAs for the three 
largest jurisdictions--the House, Capitol, and Senate--are under way 
and scheduled to be completed in October 2004. While AOC's fiscal year 
2004 annual performance plan established November 2005 as the target to 
publish a draft Capitol complex master plan, and December 2006 as the 
target to publish the final version of the plan, senior AOC officials 
reported that they now intend to publish a draft of the Capitol complex 
master plan in February 2006, with the final version published in June 
2007.

With respect to project prioritization, AOC reported that the process 
of scoring projects in 2004 went smoothly. Specifically, agency 
officials noted that there were very few scoring discrepancies between 
jurisdictional superintendents and senior AOC officials. AOC officials 
also noted that the scoring process will be used to determine what 
projects will be submitted for funding in the fiscal year 2006 budget.

While AOC has taken steps to develop the Capitol complex master plan, 
AOC officials noted that 12-16 months were added to incorporate 
comments and finalize the plan. This is the second time target 
completion dates have been changed to a later date. In addition, AOC 
officials need to involve their stakeholders early and throughout the 
Capitol complex master planning process. Given the importance and 
sensitivity of the master plan and the condition of the Capitol 
complex, as well as the difficult trade-offs that the current budget 
environment demands, congressional and other stakeholder involvement 
early and throughout the development of the master plan is key to its 
ultimate acceptance and value, which did not occur during the 
development of a similar plan in 1981. Senior agency officials reported 
that AOC intends to define the scope of work for the remaining 
jurisdictions after they complete lessons learned from the first round 
of FCAs to identify areas that may improve the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the process. This is an appropriate step if it does not 
delay the start of future FCAs. Furthermore, completion of the FCAs for 
the remaining jurisdictions will depend on when funding is received. 
While FCAs are a key component of the master plan, and ultimately need 
to be integrated into the plan, AOC's master planning efforts can begin 
before FCAs are completed. Further, once the FCAs are completed it is 
critical that they are updated regularly.

With regard to project prioritization, AOC has created a clearly-
defined, well-documented, and transparent process for evaluating and 
prioritizing projects. The evaluation criteria will be used to 
determine which projects will be submitted for funding in the fiscal 
year 2006 budget cycle. In addition, although the project 
prioritization process is a useful tool internally, the process does 
not address the underlying need to inform and get agreement from 
congressional and other stakeholders on how and why AOC submits 
specific projects for funding.

Recommendations for Agency Action: 

In order to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts, we 
recommend that the Architect of the Capitol, with support from the 
Chief Operating Officer, lead efforts to ensure that congressional and 
other stakeholders are engaged early and throughout the development of 
the Capitol complex master plan.

In order to improve the process for prioritizing projects, we recommend 
that the Architect of the Capitol, with support from the Chief 
Operating Officer, lead efforts to ensure that AOC informs and obtains 
agreement from congressional and other stakeholders on how and why 
specific projects are submitted for funding.

AOC Made Progress Toward Adopting a More Strategic Approach to its 
Recycling Program: 

It is estimated that recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 
3.3 cubic yards of landfill space, 7,000 gallons of water, 380 gallons 
of oil, 4,100 kilowatt hours of energy, and 60 pounds of air 
pollutants. Over 12,000 tons of waste is created annually within the 
Capitol Hill complex.[Footnote 13] Much of the waste generated is from 
office, construction, and maintenance activities and includes such 
materials as paper, wood, plastic, and metal. AOC is responsible for 
implementing recycling programs for much of the Capitol Hill complex 
and has taken steps both centrally, and at the jurisdiction level, to 
improve the overall effectiveness of its recycling programs.

In our January 2003 report, we recommended that AOC take a more 
strategic approach to improve the effectiveness of its recycling 
programs. Specifically, we recommended that AOC develop a clear mission 
and goals for AOC's recycling programs with input from key 
congressional stakeholders as part of its proposed environmental 
program plan. We further recommended that AOC establish reasonable 
goals based on the total waste stream that could potentially be 
recycled--information it plans to obtain as part of its long-term 
environmental program plan.

In our January 2004 report, we noted that AOC had begun taking the 
first steps toward a more strategic approach for its recycling 
programs. In accordance with our recommendation, and as part of its 
broader environmental program plan, AOC began collecting information on 
its facilities and operations through a baseline assessment and waste 
stream analysis. The baseline assessment evaluated the compliance of 
AOC facilities and operations with federal, state, and local 
environmental regulations; the waste stream analysis identified the 
types of waste created at AOC facilities and possible pollution 
prevention opportunities, such as waste elimination, reuse, or 
recycling. AOC will clarify the mission, goals, and measures of its 
recycling programs as a component of pollution prevention. According to 
AOC officials, the results of the assessment and analysis will provide 
a basis for establishing program priorities and measuring future 
progress. We further noted in our January 2004 report, that AOC was 
planning to obtain stakeholder input on the environmental program plan 
beginning in the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, after completion 
of the baseline assessment and waste stream analysis.

Over the 6 months we reviewed, AOC made progress in the development of 
its environmental program plan and its movement toward a more strategic 
approach. In particular, AOC has completed the baseline assessment as 
well as the waste stream analysis for its facilities and 
operations.[Footnote 14] Moreover, AOC is expanding its waste stream 
analysis--which currently covers office, construction, and maintenance 
waste--to include electronic waste (e-waste), such as outdated computer 
equipment. AOC is also developing pollution prevention plans based on 
the results of the waste steam analysis. In May 2004, AOC received 
input from internal stakeholders on the draft environmental plan and 
expects to complete the environmental plan in October 2004 as well as 
receive congressional input early next year.

AOC has made progress toward developing a mission and goals for its 
recycling programs in accordance with our January 2003 recommendation. 
The completion of the baseline assessment and waste stream analysis are 
good first steps toward developing a more comprehensive environmental 
program plan and should provide a sound basis for establishing program 
priorities and measuring future progress. The results from these 
efforts should also help AOC develop targeted pollution prevention 
plans. Finally, the input received from internal stakeholders on the 
environmental plan, as well as the expected input from congressional 
stakeholders early next year, should prove to be invaluable in keeping 
AOC moving forward strategically. It is critical, however, that at 
least preliminary congressional input be obtained prior to the 
environmental plan's completion to help ensure that the plan is 
consistent with the interests and expectations of congressional 
stakeholders and that AOC's efforts and resources are targeted at the 
highest priorities.

Recommendation for Agency Action: 

To further assist AOC in developing a more strategic approach for its 
recycling programs and to ensure that congressional input is obtained 
when it would be most useful, we recommend that the Architect of the 
Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to obtain preliminary input 
from congressional stakeholders on its environmental program plan--
particularly as the plan relates to the mission and goals of AOC's 
recycling programs--prior to the completion of the plan.

COO Action Plan Addresses Six Business Areas, but Lacks Sufficient 
Details to Guide and Communicate the COO's Performance and Progress: 

One of the most important issues raised in our January 2003 report was 
the need for Congress to create a Chief Operating Officer (COO) 
position to serve as the central leadership point to improve AOC's 
executive decision-making capacity and accountability. The 
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7) 
established, in section 1203 of Division H, the new position of Deputy 
Architect/Chief Operating Officer within the Office of the Architect of 
the Capitol. Subsection 1203(e) required that the COO prepare an action 
plan describing "the policies, procedures, and actions the [COO] will 
implement and time frames for carrying out the responsibilities under 
this section." The responsibilities described include implementing 
AOC's mission and goals, providing overall organization management, 
assisting the Architect in promoting reform, and measuring results.

The action plan was to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 
of the Senate and House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules 
and Administration of the Senate not later than 90 days after 
appointment of the COO, which occurred on July 28, 2003. The COO Action 
Plan, however, was not submitted to the committees until December 22, 
2003--59 days late.

The COO Action Plan and the Report to the Congress from Deputy 
Architect/Chief Operating Officer provide a list of 31 action items and 
their expected completion dates across six business areas: 

1. Organizational Management and Structure - 12 action items,

2. Project Management - 6 action items,

3. Customer Service - 3 action items,

4. Strategic Planning - 5 action items,

5. Communications - 3 action items, and: 

6. GAO Management Review Recommendations - 2 action items.

Overall, the plan's high-level description of the action items assumes 
that Congress and other users have a deep and detailed knowledge of 
AOC's goals, internal operations, and management functions--a level of 
knowledge that is not reasonable to expect. The plan's action items are 
described at such a high-level that it does not make clear how the COO 
would carry out his legislated responsibilities or help lead 
transformational change at AOC. For example, the legislation states 
that the COO is responsible for proposing organizational changes and 
staffing needed to carry out AOC's mission and goals. While the COO's 
report expresses the need for organizational changes and highlights 
expected improvements, it does not describe what specific changes the 
COO envisions or how changes would be accomplished. However, AOC 
included proposed organizational changes in its fiscal year 2005 budget 
justification. The House Appropriations committee did not approve those 
changes because, in the committee's view, the AOC proposal does not 
reflect Congress' intent to assign the COO the responsibility for AOC's 
overall direction, operation, and management to improve AOC's 
performance.[Footnote 15]

The COO action plan also does not detail how the individual action 
items would be accomplished or how performance would be measured. For 
example, the first item listed in the action plan is to "review/update 
AOC's organizational structure to better align with the strategic plan 
and operational mandates," yet the plan lacks necessary details, 
including how such a review would be conducted, the time frame in which 
it would be completed, who would be involved in the review, or how 
progress would be measured. While the plan does list action items 
according to broad subject areas, for example "organizational 
management and structure," the plan does not prioritize items that 
appear to be related nor does it identify the required resources or 
organizational units that are being delegated those action items. The 
plan could also better communicate whether the action items are 
standalone or dependent upon each other to accomplish the COO's 
responsibilities. Finally, even though the legislation required that 
the COO action plan be developed concurrently and consistently with the 
strategic plan,[Footnote 16] the plan did not include a direct 
crosswalk to the AOC strategic plan, which was released on December 15, 
2003, nor did it provide a clear picture of how the action items will 
help accomplish the agency's mission and goals.

Recommendation for Agency Action: 

To enhance the usefulness of the COO action plan, we recommend the 
Architect of the Capitol and the Chief Operating Officer consult with 
members of Congress and key committees on the specific information 
regarding AOC's plans, policies, procedures, actions, and proposed 
organizational changes. As part of this effort, the Architect and the 
COO should work with Congress to determine Congress' information needs 
and the timing and format of delivery of that information that will 
best meet Congress' needs. Furthermore, consistent with our findings 
and recommendations with respect to congressional and other stakeholder 
involvement in general and the Capitol complex master plan in 
particular, as well as our original January 2003 management review, 
specific emphasis should be placed on AOC's project management. 
Particular issues to be discussed could include how: 

* AOC's projects' priorities are determined,

* AOC monitors and controls project cost, quality, and timeliness,

* AOC uses lessons learned from projects and seeks to incorporate best 
practices,

* project management accountability is assigned and managed, and: 

* AOC determines the best mix of in-house and contractor support when 
designing projects.

Subsequent COO action plans and status reports will likely be most 
helpful to Congress to the extent that they are rigorously specific as 
to the problem or issue that needs to be addressed, the actions that 
are being taken in response, the progress to-date, and milestones for 
additional actions.

Concluding Observations: 

As we noted in our two previous reviews, organizational transformation 
does not come quickly or easily and the changes under way at AOC 
require a long-term concerted effort. AOC has made progress in 
addressing the eight key management control issues and the 
corresponding recommendations outlined in this report; however, AOC 
management will need to build on its efforts to date and more fully 
engage congressional and other stakeholders to ensure that their 
interests and expectations are incorporated into AOC's organizational 
transformation. For example, involving stakeholders in the development 
of a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 
communications, the formulation of a Capitol complex master plan, and 
the establishment of a recycling mission and goals will be critical in 
successfully addressing these key issues. As AOC works to establish its 
strategic management and accountability framework and address long-
standing areas of concern, it must continue to demonstrate progress on 
each of these eight key issues to help it sustain the momentum needed 
to accomplish its organizational transformation, particularly in 
engaging its congressional and other stakeholders.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided the Architect of the Capitol a draft of this report on July 
26, 2004, for review and comment. We received written comments from the 
Architect on August 13, 2004, and they are reprinted in appendix I. In 
his comments, the Architect generally agreed with our findings and 
conclusions. He suggested technical changes and provided additional 
information related to information security, safety performance 
measures, and Capitol complex master planning that were incorporated 
into our report where appropriate. The Architect also noted his 
agreement with each new recommendation, except for those regarding 
worker safety performance measures, Capitol complex master planning, 
and the process for prioritizing projects.

Regarding worker safety performance measures, we reported that AOC's 
safety perception survey had design and implementation weaknesses and, 
therefore, we recommended a more rigorous methodological approach to 
the survey. In response, the Architect stated that they found AOC's 
employee response rate to be 68 percent. While this rate is approaching 
the 70 percent cut-off that is considered minimally acceptable for this 
type of survey, only 49 percent of the subgroup of frontline employees 
(e.g. carpenters, plumbers, and custodial workers) returned a completed 
survey, according to AOC's summary report. As frontline employees are 
most at risk of work-related injuries, their low response rate makes it 
difficult for AOC to draw meaningful conclusions about these employees' 
attitudes and beliefs towards safety. The Architect also noted that the 
survey used a number of benchmark questions that have previously been 
used in other surveys. Nonetheless, AOC's lack of a pre-test of the 
entire instrument does not give AOC assurance that employees 
interpreted the questions in the manner AOC had expected. In fact, 
officials in one AOC jurisdiction were concerned that some questions 
could be misinterpreted and therefore had employees complete their 
individual survey in a group like setting. Thus, we believe that AOC's 
safety perception survey would still benefit from a more rigorous 
methodological approach.

In our draft report, we also recommended that the Architect direct the 
COO to improve Capitol complex master planning efforts and the process 
to prioritize projects by (1) ensuring that congressional and other 
stakeholders are engaged early and throughout the development of the 
Capitol complex master plan, and (2) ensuring that AOC informs and 
obtains agreement from congressional and other stakeholders on how and 
why specific projects are submitted for funding. According to the 
Architect, he has and will continue to lead the Capitol complex master 
plan initiative. In addition, the Architect noted his plan to get an 
Architect/Engineer (AE) onboard so that they can jointly meet with and 
ensure that stakeholders are engaged at the beginning and throughout 
the development of the master plan. We agree that the Architect's 
personal involvement in the development of the Capitol complex master 
plan will be critical to its success and the Architect's commitment to 
engage stakeholders is consistent with our recommendation. However, 
because the COO position was created to serve as the central leadership 
point to improve AOC's executive decision-making capacity and 
accountability, the COO should also be involved in the master planning 
process, project prioritization, and communication with stakeholders. 
As such, we made revisions to the two recommendations to address the 
Architect's concerns so that the Architect, with support from the COO, 
leads efforts to implement the recommendations. In addition, the 
Architect questioned the direct link between the master plan and the 
prioritization process. We continue to believe that the Capitol complex 
master plan and project prioritization should be linked because a 
master plan could help guide day-to-day prioritization by being the 
basis for communicating, both internally and externally, the trade-offs 
that result from prioritizing one project over another, or how 
individual projects fit within a broader AOC framework. We made 
revisions to the two recommendations to provide greater clarity by 
addressing the master plan and the prioritization process separately.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
parties. We are also sending a copy to the Architect of the Capitol. 
This report is also available at no charge on GAO's Web site at 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

If you or your staff have general questions concerning this report, or 
specific questions concerning strategic management or human capital 
issues, please contact J. Christopher Mihm or Steven Lozano at (202) 
512-6806 or by e-mail at [Hyperlink, mihmj@gao.gov] or [Hyperlink, 
lozanos@gao.gov]. In addition, if you have specific questions 
concerning financial management issues, please contact Jeanette Franzel 
or John Reilly at (202) 512-9471 or by e-mail at 
[Hyperlink, franzelj@gao.gov] or [Hyperlink, reillyj@gao.gov]. If you 
have specific questions concerning information technology issues, 
please contact Randolph Hite or Carl Higginbotham at (202) 512-3439 or 
by e-mail at [Hyperlink, hiter@gao.gov] or 
[Hyperlink, higginbothamc@gao.gov]. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix II.

Signed by: 

J. Christopher Mihm: 
Managing Director, Strategic Issues: 

Signed by: 

Jeanette M. Franzel:
Director, Financial Management and Assurance: 

Signed by: 

Randolph C. Hite: 
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Comments from the Architect of the Capitol: 

The Architect of the Capitol: 
Washington, DC 20515:

August 10, 2004:

Mr. J. Christopher Mihm, Director: 
Strategic Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G St. NW:
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Mihm:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the U.S. General Accounting 
Office (GAO) August 2004 draft report "Architect of the Capitol: Mid 
Year Status Report on the Implementation of Management Review 
Recommendations." As your report reflects, we continue to make steady 
progress in addressing the recommendations contained in the original 
report and we are committed to successfully bringing about the 
organizational transformation we jointly envision.

Our review of the draft report indicates that for the most part, it is 
consistent with the information we have exchanged throughout the 
review. Our comments and some updated information are attached. We look 
forward to continuing to work with you on this path of change, 
recognizing as you do, that this organizational transformation will 
take several years to fully accomplish.

Please give Hector Suarez a call (228-1205) if you have any questions 
or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Alan M. Hantman, FAIA: 
Architect of the Capitol:

General Issues:

Terminology Issues: On the "Highlights" page, in the second paragraph, 
it states that "AOC has taken steps to develop a Capitol Hill complex 
master plan. . ." The use of the underlined terminology is incorrect, 
has never been used, and if used in the GAO report, will lead to 
confusion. The correct terminology is "Capitol Complex Master Plan 
(CCMP)." This is the terminology that appears in the AOC Strategic 
Plan, the signed contract with the consultant developing the plan, and 
all other related documentation. All references to "Capitol Hill 
Complex Master Plan" in the GAO report should be changed to "Capitol 
Complex Master Plan."

AOC Suggested Change: All references to "Capitol Hill Complex Master 
Plan" in the GAO report should be changed to "Capitol Complex Master 
Plan." The following pages require change:

* page 3, near the bottom, paragraph 1:

* page 4, paragraph 1 

* page 15:

* page 34:

* page 35, paragraphs 1, 2, 4:

* page 36, paragraph 1, 3:

* page 42, paragraph 2:

Page 8 - The term "Building condition assessments (BCA)" is used. The 
terminology "Building Condition Assessment" is incorrect. AOC's 
Strategic Plan uses the term "Facility Condition Assessment (FCA).

AOC Suggested Change: All references to "Building Condition 
Assessments" in the GAO report should be changed to "Facility Condition 
Assessments." The following pages require change:

* page 9:

* page 34:

* page 35:

* page 36:

Pages 8, 35 - Building Condition Assessments are referred to as "key 
components of a master plan." Similar terminology appears in the second 
paragraph on page 34 and again in the first paragraph on page 36. This 
is incorrect; they are not a component or a part of the master plan. 
They provide, in an ideal manner, information on facility conditions is 
a desired but a not mandatory "prerequisite" to undertaking a master 
plan.

AOC Suggested Change: Information derived from Facility Condition 
Assessments (FCA) will be used in the development of the Capitol 
Complex Master Plan where appropriate.

Page 9 - The report refers to identifying lessons learned from the 
first round of FCAs as "an appropriate step if it assures that future 
BCAs (should be FCAs) are completed accurately and more efficiently 
without causing delays." Similar wording appears in the first paragraph 
on page 36. The wording implies that the ongoing FCAs for the Capitol 
Building, and Senate and House Office Buildings were not completed 
accurately or efficiently resulting in delays. All references are 
incorrect. The development of the first round of FCAs has been a model 
of accuracy, efficiency, and timeliness.

AOC Suggested Change: The wording should be modified to reflect that 
the first round of FCAs has been a model of accuracy, efficiency, and 
timeliness.

Page 19 - To provide feedback to its employees, AOC continues to 
publish its weekly .... and issues HR Bulletins that provide updates on 
benefits:

AOC Suggested Change: Should change to read, "... and issues HR 
Bulletins that provide information on changes in HR practices and that 
highlight time sensitive information regarding issues such as benefits. 
(The bulletins aren't restricted to benefits announcements.):

Page 20 - Most important, AOC's top leadership must make visible and 
timely adjustments in policy or procedures in response to employee 
concerns.

AOC Suggested Change: Should change to read "must make visible and 
timely adjustments as appropriate in policy or procedures in response 
to employee concerns." (Not all employee concerns will result in a 
change.):

Page 32 - Finally, AOC has continued to assess training performance by 
asking participants to evaluate training courses, as well as solicit 
informal feedback from participant's supervisors... However, AOC has 
made little progress on developing tools necessary for more complex 
assessments of its training and development efforts, such as measuring 
their impact on overall program or organizational results, or comparing 
the benefits of training efforts against their costs. We have 
previously reported on the potential value - and challenges-associated 
with these more complex approaches of assessing training and 
development. When deciding on an evaluation strategy, agencies (such as 
AOC) should select an appropriate analytical approach that will best 
measure the effect of its programs while also considering what is 
realistic and reasonable given broader context and fiscal constraints.

AOC Suggested Change: Should change to read, "...continued to assess 
training performance by asking participants to evaluate training 
courses, having subject matter experts from the Safety, Fire and 
Environmental Program Office audit the courses, as well as solicit 
informal feedback.. In addition, AOC has drawn correlations between 
safety training for a specific procedure followed by a reduction in 
related injury rates or other positive result. For example:

Manual Material Handling (Back Safety) resulted in fewer injuries.

Asbestos & Lead Courses have resulted in fewer employee complaints due 
to enhanced understanding of hazards. (Per the Senate Office 
Buildings):

Personal Protective Equipment Training has resulted in a noticeably 
greater use of PPE. (Per the Senate Office Buildings):

Aerial Lift Operator Safety Training has resulted in a number of aerial 
lifts being replaced or repaired which have no doubt prevented possible 
injuries. (Per the Central Staff Safety Office):

A recent actual event (blood clean up) demonstrated that trainees are 
very knowledgeable and are applying the principles taught in BloodBorne 
Pathogens training. (Per the Central Staff Safety Office).

Page 35: GAO states: While AOC has taken steps to develop the Capitol 
Hill complex master plan, AOC officials noted that 12 - 16 months were 
added to incorporate comments and finalize the plan. This is the second 
time target completion dates have been changed to a later date.

AOC Suggested Change: Delete "This is the second time target completion 
dates have been changed to a later date." Insert the following 
sentence: In addition, just prior to the publishing of the AOC 
Strategic Plan, the Architect determined that significant efficiencies 
could be realized through the use of the General Services 
Administration (GSA) to administer the contracting process resulting in 
other date modifications relating to the Capitol Complex Master Plan 
schedule.

Page 38: GAO states "It is critical, however, that at least preliminary 
congressional input be obtained prior to the environmental plan's 
completion in October 2004-"

AOC Suggested Change: AOC's Strategic Plan contains a milestone for a 
draft (not final) of the Environmental Plan to be completed in October 
2004. The plan also contains an activity of "gathering stakeholder 
input" prior to the completion of the draft plan. The sentence should 
be changed to read: "AOC recognizes the importance of stakeholder input 
and has incorporated this activity into the process of developing and 
drafting its environmental program plan." Reference to October 2004 
should be deleted.

Key Issue - Stakeholder Involvement:

Corresponding Prior Recommendation:

(1) Improve strategic planning and organizational alignment by 
involving key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC's 
strategic planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may 
result from these efforts.

(2) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 
communications by completing the development of congressional protocols 
by involving stakeholders.

Related New Recommendation: (Pages 4, 17):

To strengthen the relationship between AOC and its congressional and 
other stakeholders, we recommend the Architect of the Capitol: 

Work with Congress on the design and implementation of a transparent 
process to facilitate an understanding between AOC and its 
congressional stakeholders about how AOC targets its efforts and 
resources at the highest project priorities and how strategic and 
tactical decisions and trade-offs are made.

Corresponding Prior Recommendations:

(3) Conduct a pilot of its congressional protocols in one or more of 
its jurisdictions to determine how well its protocols would work in 
addressing customer requests for service, while balancing the needs of 
multiple requests with the strategic plan and corresponding project 
priorities of the agency.

(4) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 
communications by improving annual accountability reporting through 
annual performance planning and reporting.

Related New Recommendation: (Pages 4, 16):

To strengthen the relationship between AOC and its congressional and 
other stakeholders, we recommend the Architect of the Capitol:

* Actively consult with Congress on the design and implementation of 
meaningful outcome-and performance-based measures that are useful to 
both AOC and Congress and thereby enable AOC and Congress to assess 
AOC's progress.

New Recommendation: (Pages 4, 16):

To strengthen the relationship between AOC and its congressional and 
other stakeholders, we recommend the Architect of the Capitol:

* Expedite the release of the 2003 building services customer 
satisfaction survey, as a transparency and accountability mechanism and 
to provide Congress and other stakeholders assurance that actions are 
being taken in response to their feedback.

AOC Response:

AOC agrees with the recommendations to take steps to more fully engage 
congressional and other stakeholders.

Key Issue - Employee Communications:

Corresponding Prior Recommendation:

(5) Strengthen AOC's human capital policies, procedures, and processes 
by assessing ways in which AOC management could better gather and 
analyze data from the various employee relations offices and employee 
advisory council while maintaining employee confidentiality.

Related New Recommendation: (Pages 5, 20):

To improve communications with employees, we recommend that the 
Architect of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to:

* Fully and effectively implement the basic framework as defined in its 
communications plan and process manuals, and finalize its draft 
employee feedback manual to assure that the current progress already 
made is maintained.

Corresponding Prior Recommendations:

(6) Establish a direct reporting relationship between the Ombudsperson 
and the Architect consistent with professional standards.

(7) Develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 
communications by providing opportunities for routine employee input 
and feedback.

(8) Gather and analyze employee feedback from focus groups or surveys 
before fiscal year 2005, as well as communicate how it is taking 
actions to address any identified employee concerns.

Related New Recommendation: (Pages 5, 21):

To improve communications with employees, we recommend that the 
Architect of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to:

* Conduct an analysis of both AOC management and employee needs with 
respect to resolving employee concerns and issues, as well as assessing 
the capacity of existing offices to fulfill those needs.

AOC Response:

AOC agrees with the recommendations to improve employee communications 
by continuing to fully implement AOC's communication framework. We will 
monitor employee relations issues and employee feedback to determine if 
there is a need for an Obmudsperson. This function, which was filled by 
a contractor, not a permanent staff person, has not been used this 
fiscal year. Human Resources and EEO staff have been proactively 
focusing efforts on addressing employee issues and communications.

Key Issues - Auditable Financial Statements and Financial Reporting for 
Business Segments:

Corresponding Prior Recommendation:

(9) Continue to improve AOC's approach to financial management by 
developing strategies to institutionalize financial management 
practices that will support budgeting, financial, and program 
management at AOC.

Related New Recommendation Pertaining to Auditable Financial 
Statements:

To help strengthen and sustain AOC's emerging foundation of financial 
accountability and control, we recommend that the Architect of the 
Capitol, the Chief Operating Officer, and other senior management:

* Provide strong and visible support for efforts to prepare auditable 
financial statements and implement an effective internal control 
framework by monitoring the implementation and related milestones for 
each effort, ensuring the commitment to and support for each effort by 
participating AOC units, and acting to resolve any impediments that may 
arise.

AOC Response:

AOC agrees with this recommendation.

Related New Recommendations Pertaining to Financial Reporting for 
Business Segments:

To enhance the successful development of useful financial, cost, and/or 
performance reporting for major operating units and appropriate cost 
accounting, we recommend that the Architect of the Capitol direct the 
Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Financial Officer to:

* Work with operating managers to assess the usefulness of financial-
statement-level information, take an active role in AOC near-term 
efforts to develop agency wide performance measures, and review all 
available options to determine whether substantial work can begin, 
prior to fiscal year 2006, on the analyses needed to identify changes 
necessary to implement useful cost accounting at AOC, and:

* Have senior management visibly demonstrate its continuing commitment 
to and support for making AOC-wide system, procedural, and cultural 
changes necessary:

to provide managers with timely financial, cost, and performance 
information by monitoring the efforts' implementation and related 
milestones, ensuring the commitment to and support for the efforts by 
participating AOC units, and acting to resolve any impediments that may 
arise.

AOC Response:

AOC agrees with this recommendation.

Key Issue - Information Security Management:

Corresponding Prior Recommendation:

(10) Establish and implement an information security program. 
Specifically, the Architect should establish an information security 
program by taking the following steps:

* designate a security officer and provide him or her with the 
authority and resources to implement an agency wide security program,

* develop and implement policy and guidance to perform risk assessments 
continually,

* use the results of the risk assessments to develop and implement 
appropriate controls,

* develop policies for security training and awareness and provide the 
training, and monitor and evaluate policy and control effectiveness.

No New Recommendations:

AOC Response:

AOC agrees with the recommendations in the report and are taking the 
following steps to address the recommendations:

* AOC is expediting the modification of the existing contract (within 
the scheduling constraints set by GSA) to hire two security 
specialists,

* Security training and awareness training is proceeding with new 
employee orientation for security awareness, security awareness at 
every OIRM all-hands meeting and web-based annual security awareness 
training. Subsequent roles and responsibilities training will begin in 
FY06. Executive level security training will lead this effort.

* The Risk Assessment Policy was implemented in the first quarter of 
FY04 as demonstrated by the risk assessment conducted on ADC's mission 
critical general support systems. The risk assessment was conducted 
using KIST and FISCAM guidance. The mission critical general support 
systems, the AS400 and Unix system, contained ADC's financial 
management system (FMS).

* The control to mitigate the identified risks was implemented through 
the CIO Council's Plans of Action and Milestone (POA&M) methodology. 
The CISO is currently seeking ways to automate this control.

* AOC is monitoring policy and control effectiveness through OIRM's 
Metrics Program. An evaluation of ADC's security controls is conducted 
on a monthly basis by the Inspector General and the Deputy Chief of 
Staff. The findings of the risk assessments conducted on ADC's general 
support systems and mitigation processes is reviewed bi-weekly by the 
Inspector General and the Risk Assessment Manager. Plans are underway 
to automate the monitoring and evaluation of the security metrics for 
each security policy area.

Key Issue - Worker Safety Performance Measures:

Corresponding Prior Recommendation:

(11) Identify performance measures for safety goals and objectives, 
including measures for how AOC will implement 43 specialized safety 
programs and how superintendents and employees will be held accountable 
for achieving results.

Related New Recommendation:

To enhance worker safety performance measures at AOC, we recommend that 
the Architect of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to:

* Expand upon its safety perception survey by developing a more 
rigorous methodological approach and collecting such information on a 
more regular basis.

AOC Response:

AOC has reviewed the perception survey methodology and found that 68% 
of AOC employees responded to survey (a response rate well above 30% 
norm reported by Dupont Safety Resources (DSR), designer of the 
survey). The survey also uses a number of benchmark questions that have 
been used by DSR in a number of public and private surveys. These 
benchmark questions, have undergone pre-testing, therefore modifying 
those questions would invalidate their use.

AOC is looking into incorporating safety-related questions in future 
employee surveys covering other issues as well.

Corresponding Prior Recommendations:

(12) Establish a safety training curriculum that fully supports all of 
the goals of the safety program and further evaluate the effectiveness 
of the training provided.

(13) Establish a senior management work group that will routinely 
discuss workers' compensation cases and costs, and develop strategies 
to reduce these injuries and costs.

AOC Response:

No additional comments:

Key Issue - Capitol Hill Complex Master Planning:

Corres ponding Recommendations:

(14) Develop a Capitol Hill complex master plan and complete condition 
assessments of all buildings and facilities under the jurisdiction of 
AOC.

Related New Recommendation:

In order to improve Capitol Hill complex master planning efforts and 
the process for prioritizing projects, we recommend that the Architect 
of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to:

* Ensure that congressional and other stakeholders are engaged early 
and throughout the development of the Capitol Hill complex master plan.

AOC Response:

I disagree with this recommendation.

(1) Please correct reference to this initiative. It is not the Capitol 
Hill Complex Master Plan, it is the Capitol Complex Master Plan. (2) 
With regard to the Capitol Complex Master plan, I have and will 
continue to lead this initiative. My plan has been to get the AE on-
board so that we can jointly meet with our stakeholders to ensure they 
are engaged at the beginning and through out development of the master 
plan. (3) I do not understand the how the reference to "improve... the 
process for prioritizing projects" links with the Complex Master Plan 
initiative.

(15) Develop a process for assigning project priorities that is based 
on clearly defined, well-documented, consistently applied, and 
transparent criteria.

Related New Recommendation:

In order to improve Capitol Hill complex master planning efforts and 
the process for prioritizing projects, we recommend that the Architect 
of the Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to:

* Ensure that AOC informs and obtains agreement from congressional and 
other stakeholders on how and why specific projects are submitted for 
funding.

AOC Response:

I disagree with this recommendation. As noted previously, (1) Please 
correct reference to this initiative, it is the Capitol Complex Master 
Plan. (2) With regard to the Capitol Complex Master plan, I have and 
will continue to lead this initiative. My plan has been to get the AE 
on-board so that we can jointly meet with our stakeholders to ensure 
they are engaged at the beginning and through out development of the 
master plan. (3) Given the current status on this initiative, I do not 
understand the recommendation to direct the COO to "Ensure that AOC 
informs and obtains agreement from congressional and other stakeholders 
on how and why specific projects are submitted for funding."

Key Issue - Strategic Management of Recycling:

Corresponding Recommendations:

(16) Develop a clear mission and goals for AOC's recycling program with 
input from key congressional stakeholders as part of its proposed 
environmental master plan. AOC may want to establish reasonable goals 
based on the total waste stream-information it plans to obtain as part 
of its long-term environmental management plan-that could potentially 
be recycled.

Related New Recommendation:

To further assist AOC in developing a more strategic approach for its 
recycling programs and to ensure that congressional input is obtained 
when it would be most useful, we recommend that the Architect of the 
Capitol direct the Chief Operating Officer to:

Obtain preliminary input from congressional stakeholders on its 
environmental program plan-particularly as the plan relates to the 
mission and goals of AOC's recycling programs-prior to the completion 
of the plan.

AOC Response:

AOC agrees with is recommendation and has an activity listed in the 
Strategic Plan to "gather stakeholder input" prior to publishing the 
draft environmental program plan.

Key Issue - COO Action Plan:

New Recommendations:

To enhance the usefulness of the COO action plans, we recommend the 
Architect of the Capitol and the Chief Operating Officer:

* Consult with members of Congress and key committees on the specific 
information regarding AOC's plans, policies, procedures, actions, and 
proposed organizational	changes.

* Work with Congress to determine Congress' information needs and the 
timing and format of delivery of that information that will best meet 
Congress' needs. Furthermore, consistent with our findings and 
recommendations above in regard to congressional and other stakeholder 
involvement in general and the Capitol Hill Complex master plan in 
particular, as well as our original January 2003 management review, 
specific emphasis should be placed on AOC's project management. 
Particular issues to be discussed could include how:

* AOC's projects' priorities are determined,

* AOC monitors and controls project cost, quality, and timeliness, 

* AOC uses lessons learned from projects and seeks to incorporate best 
practices,

* Project management accountability is assigned and managed, and 

* AOC determines the best mix of in-house and contractor support when 
designing projects.

Subsequent COO action plans and status reports, will likely be most 
helpful to Congress to the extent that they are rigorously specific as 
to the problem or issue that needs to be addressed, the actions that 
are being taken in response, the progress-to-date, and milestones for 
additional actions.

AOC Response:

AOC agrees with the recommendations. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Staff Acknowledgments: 

Individuals making key contributions to this report included Kevin J. 
Conway, Jeffery Bass, Thomas Beall, Justin Booth, Terrell Dorn, Andrew 
Edelson, Steven Elstein, Brett Fallavollita, Joel Grossman, Carl 
Higginbotham, Dan Hoy, John Johnson, Steven Lozano, Mamesho Macaulay, 
Jeff McDermott, David Merrill, John Reilly, Kris Trueblood, Carl Urie, 
Michael Volpe, and Daniel Wexler.

(450321) 

FOOTNOTES

[1] H.R. Rep. No. 108-10, accompanying Pub. L. No. 108-7 (Feb. 20, 
2003).

[2] GAO, Architect of the Capitol: Status Report on Implementation of 
Management Review Recommendations, GAO-04-299 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 
30, 2004); and Architect of the Capitol: Management and Accountability 
Framework Needed for Organizational Transformation, GAO-03-231 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17, 2003). 

[3] In previous GAO reports, we used the phrase Capitol Hill complex 
master plan. In his written comments, the Architect requested that the 
term "Hill" be omitted to ensure consistency with the AOC strategic 
plan, the master plan contract, and other related documentation. We 
have made this change throughout the report.

[4] In previous GAO reports, we used the phrase building condition 
assessments. In his written comments, the Architect requested that the 
term "building" be replaced with "facility" to ensure consistency with 
the AOC strategic plan. We have made this change throughout the report.

[5] Architect of the Capitol, Employee Feedback Process Manual, AOC-
SP1.4 (Washington, D.C., June 2004), 1.

[6] GAO, Government Printing Office: Advancing GPO's Transformation 
Effort through Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-04-85 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2003).

[7] In response to our recommendation to institutionalize financial 
management best practices, AOC's CFO developed three broad-based action 
plans--each of which contains several individual planned actions. In 
focusing on the financial management issues we considered key for this 
report, we reviewed AOC's reported progress on those planned actions 
that directly relate to each key financial management issue we 
identified.

[8] In response to our recommendation to institutionalize financial 
management best practices, AOC's CFO developed three broad-based action 
plans--each of which contains several individual planned actions. In 
focusing on the financial management issues we considered key for this 
report, we reviewed AOC's reported progress on those planned actions 
that directly relate to each key financial management issue we 
identified.

[9] AOC now refers to the safety programs as safety policies and has 
reduced the number of policies to 34.

[10] The measure--a safety perception survey--was part of a safety 
communications assessment that included focus group meetings designed 
to validate and expand on the survey results.

[11] See GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training 
and Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G 
(Washington, D.C.: March 2004).

[12] National Research Council, Stewardship of Federal Facilities: A 
Proactive Strategy for Managing the Nation's Public Assets (Washington, 
D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998), p. 43.

[13] Waste tonnage does not include hazardous and non-hazardous 
chemical waste.

[14] The baseline assessment for AOC facilities and operations was 
actually completed in November 2003.

[15] H.R. Rep. No. 108-577, accompanying H.R. 4755 (Jul. 1, 2004).

[16] Pub. L. No. 108-7, §1203(e)(2)(B).

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 



Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: